972 replies to this topic

[Joe Mallad]

Random Wanderer, on 07 October 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Something I want to (try) to make clear to the yes voters: those of us who are voting no aren't doing so because we hate the idea of better ELO in the game. I think almost all of us would like the matches to be well-balanced. Our problem is that eliminating the game mode choice is not a good way to do that. It may have some effect on balancing the matches, although I personally have still seen several 12-0 matches since it was implemented, but there are better ways to match up people by appropriate skill level. Ways that don't come with entire hosts of problems on their own, and which don't seriously anger large portions of the userbase. You don't need to eliminate player choice in gamemode to get a better ELO, you don't need to trap Dire Wolves in a hopeless situation in Conquest, you don't need to shove Conquest-optimzed players into Skirmish, and so on. And you don't need to threaten large portions of your playerbase with banning for just trying to play the kind of game they enjoy, and not being willing to sit through a match that is torture for them.

We are FINE with better ELO. We'd be happy to get it. Just not this way.

if it passes, there is an easy fix for those that don't want to be trapped in a conquest game with Direwolves or those trapped in a skirmish game with unoptimized light mechs. Once the votes are cast and the system picks a game mode, we need to be able to "then" be able to pick our mechs. If we were allowed to pick our mechs "after" we know the game mode, people can bring which ever mech they feel is best suited for that game mode.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 08 October 2014 - 06:54 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Also; biased questions are still biased

[Lily from animove]

Anavel Gato2, on 08 October 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

English is not my first language. So i will try to be simple, clear and brutal enough to be sure you understand me:

I will NOT allow YOU to force ME to play CONQUEST. Never.
I wil DISCONNECT and try again - again - again - again untill i will play how I want to play.

Today i got 4 consecutive Conquest launch, i had 4 mechs locked ingame and i started with a 5th one.
I'm here for fun, not for work. Playing a gamemode i don't like is no fun.

wow, why ? most conquest and assaults anyways end in skiirmish mode, so there is hardly a reason to quit them.

Edited by Lily from animove, 08 October 2014 - 06:53 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yoseful Mallad, on 08 October 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

if it passes, there is an easy fix for those that don't want to be trapped in a conquest game with Direwolves or those trapped in a skirmish game with unoptimized light mechs. Once the votes are cast and the system picks a game mode, we need to be able to "then" be able to pick our mechs. Of we were allowed to pick our mechs "after" we know the game mode, people can bring which ever mech they feel is best suited for that game mode.

Technically there are a couple of easy fixes.

One dont play ("vote with your wallet as Russ said")

Two, alt + f4 (I dont suggest that one)

[Chrithu]

So far after about 30 matches with Assault being the only selected game mode I had 2 conquest games, the rest was a pretty even split between assault and skirmish. I piloted my Jester mostly.

So far the wait time is noticeably shorter for me, the match quality also is definetly improved and I also feel that I get a lot more matches that are close to 3x4 on both sides.

[Mawai]

Niko. This revised poll just gives one option ... take it or leave it.

1) Your own data has shown no improvement in match Elo in the solo queue. Which is the entire raisin d'etre for the change. So the change makes no sense in the solo queue and simply forces people to play game modes they don't like ... how can this be an improvement?

2) In the group queue there does appear to be a change in the Elo range in matching ... does this affect match outcomes? This option in the group queue might make sense since it is possibly improving matches. However, the problem is that mech selection for a conquest match is not the same as for assault/skirmish. Slow mechs with a lot of firepower are less useful in Conquest ... so I can see how folks dropping in groups with mechs that are inappropriate for conquest might not like being given a conquest match to play.

Anyway ... the entire problem can not be resolved with one question and honestly it should not be. The decision is ultimately up to PGI ... this isn't a democracy. Whatever changes you make are likely to irritate someone ... but it is IMPORTANT to test these changes out ... just like you are doing right now and listen to the feedback from the community.

Setting up a poll to make a decision is like saying "I don't want to decide even though I have the hard data to make the best decision ... I don't want the responsibility" ... on the other hand, a poll is a good way to get feedback from those who take the time to answer.

In addition, you need to keep in mind that if 51% vote in favour and 49% against or vice versa ... you will have received the feedback on the issue .. but the "community" is clearly strongly divided on the issue ... so you have a problem whichever decision you decide to make. You need more information ... how many strongly like the new system ... how many are strongly opposed ... how many don't care ... how many have a slight preference of one over the other ... but would play either.

The simple yes/no question won't get you the information you need to make an informed decision ...

and FINALLY ... the question is STILL misleading ... "Yes - I want the improvement in team ELO differences." ... it has already been stated by Russ that initial data indicates NO CHANGE on team Elo differences in the solo queue ... so someone voting YES who plays mostly solo is simply voting to take away their choice without having any measurable benefit.

[STEF_]

Anavel Gato2, on 08 October 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

English is not my first language. So i will try to be simple, clear and brutal enough to be sure you understand me:

I will NOT allow YOU to force ME to play CONQUEST. Never.
I wil DISCONNECT and try again - again - again - again untill i will play how I want to play.

Today i got 4 consecutive Conquest launch, i had 4 mechs locked ingame and i started with a 5th one.
I'm here for fun, not for work. Playing a gamemode i don't like is no fun.

Being a player since 2012 I assume that you perfectly know that around 90% of assault and conquest matches end like a skirmish match....

That said, if I ever find you in a game with that behavior I will report you.

Happy hunting.

[Summon3r]

well clearly there is a divide here, and some seriously pissed off customers on both sides of the arguement... PGI i hope you have something in mind that meets the needs of both sides somewhat.. maybe for starters try allowing people to select 2 game types and 100% exclude another game type?

i dunno but this cant be good for business

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lily from animove, on 08 October 2014 - 06:48 AM, said:

wow, why ? most conquest and assaults anyways end in skiirmish mode, so ther eis hardly a reason to quit them.

Becuse apparently theres a lot of people that dont like conquest and refuse to play it - like me.

[Agelmar]

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:

...
Yes I don't have that functionality yet. I also do not want to remove any resources from CW to accommodate this poll. We need to live like this for a while longer.

Only important thing said so far. Live with it until CW. CW is the future of this game. CW will make / break the game.

CW is all that matters right now.

[Lily from animove]

Mekwarrior, on 08 October 2014 - 06:41 AM, said:

But being able to choose the game mode isn't going to drive players away.

egoistic and wrong thinking.

When newer palyers constantly get stomped by others because they get matched with a too big elo gap, they may leave the game. Your logic is flawed by a heavy biased mind not seeing the entire picture of the game.

[Hawk819]

I still think it's a dumb idea. Plus, no one should be forced to play a mode they don't want.

[Sorbic]

What about slightly bumping the time that MM will look for your preferred mode? Like how group MM will try to get a 12 vs 12 but after an allotted time the relief valves will open. Many of the whiners I saw pitching a fit were all about skirmish (it is my "preferred" mode) but I only played that mode maybe a third of the time. Granted NONE of us have had much time to really form a strong, factually based opinion on the system but I would think players getting their preferred mode at least 2/3rds of the time would alleviate a lot of the moaning.

Also, if after a few days of data collection the solo queue elo spread doesn't seem to have been helped enough to justify the moaning, well than maybe make it group Q only.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mawai, on 08 October 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

Niko. This revised poll just gives one option ... take it or leave it.

1) Your own data has shown no improvement in match Elo in the solo queue. Which is the entire raisin d'etre for the change. So the change makes no sense in the solo queue and simply forces people to play game modes they don't like ... how can this be an improvement?

2) In the group queue there does appear to be a change in the Elo range in matching ... does this affect match outcomes? This option in the group queue might make sense since it is possibly improving matches. However, the problem is that mech selection for a conquest match is not the same as for assault/skirmish. Slow mechs with a lot of firepower are less useful in Conquest ... so I can see how folks dropping in groups with mechs that are inappropriate for conquest might not like being given a conquest match to play.

Anyway ... the entire problem can not be resolved with one question and honestly it should not be. The decision is ultimately up to PGI ... this isn't a democracy. Whatever changes you make are likely to irritate someone ... but it is IMPORTANT to test these changes out ... just like you are doing right now and listen to the feedback from the community.

Setting up a poll to make a decision is like saying "I don't want to decide even though I have the hard data to make the best decision ... I don't want the responsibility" ... on the other hand, a poll is a good way to get feedback from those who take the time to answer.

In addition, you need to keep in mind that if 51% vote in favour and 49% against or vice versa ... you will have received the feedback on the issue .. but the "community" is clearly strongly divided on the issue ... so you have a problem whichever decision you decide to make. You need more information ... how many strongly like the new system ... how many are strongly opposed ... how many don't care ... how many have a slight preference of one over the other ... but would play either.

The simple yes/no question won't get you the information you need to make an informed decision ...

and FINALLY ... the question is STILL misleading ... "Yes - I want the improvement in team ELO differences." ... it has already been stated by Russ that initial data indicates NO CHANGE on team Elo differences in the solo queue ... so someone voting YES who plays mostly solo is simply voting to take away their choice without having any measurable benefit.

They apparently dont care if the poll is biased, they just want telemetry that backs up the answer they want

[Sprouticus]

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.

I get that. Maybe when training you should run smaller groups (1-2 experienced players with 3-4 new ones) so you are more likely to end up against casual small groups.

Remember, PGI inserted a modifier into the MM system to dynamically raise the Elo for larger groups to make up for the additional cohesion of large group play. Also, remember the MM does try to match large gorusp vs large groups. Not sure how that impacts Elo, but I am sure it does.

Just some thoughts.


My point being that I doubt that limiting it to skirmish would have been much better.,

[MlN3X]

Thx for MEGABALANCE Pgi =3 Now your matchmaker looks awesome

[Scratx]

My take on this is simple...

On the SOLO queue, if there is no discernible difference either way, it's probably best to let people pick only the modes they want.

On the GROUP queue, there is a huge difference by the numbers. Frankly, the difference is so huge I don't even see the point of making a poll over it. Yet, here we are, voting anyway.

I've cast mine. Now, I wait, play and whatever happens, I'll be here.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Agelmar, on 08 October 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

Only important thing said so far. Live with it until CW. CW is the future of this game. CW will make / break the game.

CW is all that matters right now.

useless poll is useless when Russ has stated that they CANT/WONT change this until after CW

[Rebas Kradd]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

They apparently dont care if the poll is biased, they just want telemetry that backs up the answer they want

Please stop spamming these threads. The community is voting, and you have no intellectually honest way to dismiss the poll. People can reach all they want - "the poll wasn't visible, the poll was biased, the poll wasn't long enough" - but it isn't all that solid logic.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 October 2014 - 06:55 AM.

[BARBAR0SSA]

What would be REALLY nice is the ability to block playing WITH certain players, if someone's constantly bringing an LRM5 spam build with no tag and hiding in the back....I DON'T WANT TO PLAY WITH THEM or else allow a free TK at the 5 minute mark of the match so I can punish the guy doing nothing. Better matches are a must for myself I don't think I can take watching a solo DW wobble off to face 3 lights again.

It'd take a lot of work but a way of allowing a "captain" to say find me 5 players with LRMs+Energy/Ballistic weapons, 1 with ECM, and 6 with Energy+Ballistic that would grab random players and make a 12 man team would probably be much better than this hope MM builds a decent team. We'd at least know we have ECM cover and no ammo heavy builds.

Add in a menu like the weight class queue to show weapons in demand and voila.

Really need the ability for "leaders" to emerge for solo drops, not only would it add a bit to the CW feeling of someone rising through the ranks you could go as far as letting players say "I liked how he built a team, put him high in my priority list of who I'd want to play with" use some statistics to locate these guys and promote them via their faction with some cosmetic reward on their mechs like stars showing rank yada yada.