972 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

jackal404, on 08 October 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

Really? I read the statement from the original post to mean just that ["Please let us know with your vote if you would give up the ability to guarantee your game mode for having a higher chance of getting in a competitive match." (http://mwomercs.com/...23#entry3749623)]

And the evident reported thus far indicate that this has not increased the chance for getting a competitive match.

competitive matches still often end in "stomps". Just because the match ended 12-2 doesn't mean the players involved where not of equal skill. The goal is to bring Elo variance closer together, which evens the odds of either side winning the match. Thus, more "competitive".

People are under this absurd belief that a match that ends 12-0 means the losing team where much worse, or something else was awry, but that's not the case. Its normal for matches to go that way even if all else is equal.

But at least this way, your teams elo ratings are within 50 pts instead of 200 pts, which means you're spawning fewer matches where you're unlikely to win before the match even starts.

[WarHippy]

Cabusha, on 07 October 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

I'm voting yes. The one sided matches are boring (12-0, I see you!) and those good, gritty matches are too few and far between. Keep the ELO improvement.

Yet this change has not stopped those 12-0 games from happening and it never will. Anyone that believes that a slight adjustment of the Elo numbers is going to prevent this from happening is fooling themselves. I have still seen roughly a third of my matches ending in 12-0/2. That is not an improvement worth losing my choice of game mode.

[Joe Mallad]

Khord, on 08 October 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

I don't post very often, one of the mostly silent minority. But I have to say that this mode sucks for my play. I absolutely HATE conquest mode, and 50% of the matches I played last night were conquest. I asked /all in match for a show of hands on who had voted for conquest a couple times, and only 2 or 3 would respond affirmatively that they had even selected that mode, and most said they had all 3 selected.

Personally, if my games fall into conquest from now on, I am going to leave the match and go play another mech until I get a match that isn't conquest. My team will have to deal with being one down in a mode they chose.

so if this was final and WE ALL had to deal with it, you would bail on your team and possibly cost them a match? Great team work

That's fine with me, DC all you want, all it will do is weed out those that don't want to be team players. You'll get banned for dropping purposely and those of us that will learn to play with whatever system is in place, can go on without those that would be selfish and cost games for their team.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mekwarrior, on 08 October 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

I am a player that plays exclusively skirmish since that's what I like.

I'd be surprised if there aren't a large number of other players who also enjoy a certain game type also.

Look up your game mode stats.

Profile>Stats> Gamemode
Type Matches wins losses ratio
Assault 275 151 121 1.25
Conquest 49 24 25 .96
Skirmish 314 163 151 1.08

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 08 October 2014 - 07:24 AM.

[mttha]

Pgi...Please note that most of the post here are from people who are "hevely involved" in the game. They are not the bulk of your regular casual players. Most of the people that voted here make up a loud but small minarity, and even they are almost split down the middle. The bulk of the guys who are "Just Playing a game" dont come to the forum. This majarity will vote with there absence. I am afraid you will kill the coolest game out there by listning to the minarity. If this stupid chage ailenates half or more of you players for some small (and as of yet unnoticable improvement), is it worth it?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Random Wanderer, on 08 October 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Why are you people falling for this nonesense? Losing the ability to chose game mode DOES NOT mean getting better Elo matchings!

Also theres no choice in this poll being that they cant rollback this change till after CW

[Casual Joker]

I voted yes. My reasoning behind this is mainly based on the fact that in the past 8 hours of playing I have had more close games then I've ever had in the past year or so. I understand some peoples frustration on this matter, but think about it this way; would you be complaining right now about the game mode change if we never had a choice in game mode in the first place? When we are given something and it's taken away, we mourn it's loss through pleading, desperation or even anger. When we were never given something in the first place, we do not miss something we never had.

[VanillaG]

Kay Wolf, on 07 October 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

This method of tallying group leader choices as backed up by all members of the group, meaning there is ONE VOTE for that group, and then allowing individual PUGgies to EACH get their own vote, makes the vote enormously lopsided.

That is not how it works. You get the number of votes based on the size of your team and what the drop leader sets as preferred game modes. If the drop leader of a 6 man group unchecks Conquests, your team puts in 6 votes for Assault and Skirmish and 0 for Conquest.

[Joe Mallad]

Cavale, on 08 October 2014 - 07:15 AM, said:

Here's the major issue I can see with this poll; There's a large chunk of players who simply don't care what game mode they're dropping in. Players, like me, who never turned off any game modes. For them, this system does nothing.


As for the closer ELO matches? There are some players who have a high score in only Assault. Stick them in other game modes and they flounder. Messes with their ELO. They're used to the closer spawn, so they can take slightly slower mechs, and when the laces are so spread out they're suddenly getting left behind.

every MW game I have ever played (which is all of them) you as a player and team mate will at some point have to adapt to new game play or situations in a certain game. If some can't adapt because all they want to do is brawl in the biggest, slowest, most weaponized mech they can take because all they want to do is role over people, than this isn't a game for them IMO. People new to learn to adapt. I can play an assault mech in any game mode we have right now. I'll brawl it out in the skirmish mode, and in conquest I'll situate myself around a point and guard my team that does want to cap. I don't see how some say they can't play an Assault mech in conquest.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 08 October 2014 - 07:30 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

mttha, on 08 October 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

Pgi...Please note that most of the post here are from people who are "hevely involved" in the game. They are not the bulk of your regular casual players. Most of the people that voted here make up a loud but small minarity, and even they are almost split down the middle. The bulk of the guys who are "Just Playing a game" dont come to the forum. This majarity will vote with there absence. I am afraid you will kill the coolest game out there by listning to the minarity. If this stupid chage ailenates half or more of you players for some small (and as of yet unnoticable improvement), is it worth it?

Yeah the "heavily involved" guys tend to be the whales that are keeping the game going

Me for instance, Legendary Founder, full Pheonix Pack (no saber), all the Hero mechs up to Boar's Head, Dire Wolf, Masakari and Nova bought ala carte, 8- 10 months of premium bought, several perminant camos, several colors bought, built this PC for this game (adds $900 to the total) how much is that added up anyways? Am I a whale?

[ToMang07]

Definately vote NO!

It's a GAME, you play for FUN, why FORCE people to play modes they DO NOT LIKE???

Common sense, really.

[Mekwarrior]

It just seems like the ELO fanatics are trying to ruin the game for many players for hardly any reason at all, just to squeeze out some tiny possible tweak.

Why can't they focus on improving the game matchmaking (if they think it's such a big deal) without ruining it for many players by taking away the game mode they like to play.

Edited by Mekwarrior, 08 October 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[Random Wanderer]

Yoseful Mallad, on 08 October 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

every MW name I have ever played (which is all of them) you as a player and team mate will at some point have to adapt to new game play or situations in a certain game. If some can't adapt because all they want to do is brawl in the biggest, slowest, most weaponized mech they can take because all they want to do is role over people, than this isn't a game for them IMO. People new to learn to adapt. I can play an assault mech in any game mode we have right now. I'll brawl it out in the skirmish mode, and in conquest I'll situate myself around a point and guard my team that does want to cap. I don't see how some say they can't play an Assault mech in conquest.

My Dire Wolf can't even reach the capture points before the rest of the team has capped them and left. I am constantly trailing further and further behind, unable to be effective in any way, until the enemy team comes up in their capping mob and obliterates me as a group. I can't defend my team, because I can't reach my team.

I could play something other than my Dire, but it's my newest mech and I enjoy using it, and I can no longer know what game mode I'm going to be dropped in. Until now it was perfectly safe to use.

Edited by Random Wanderer, 08 October 2014 - 07:33 AM.

[Bhael Fire]

Random Wanderer, on 08 October 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Why are you people falling for this nonesense? Losing the ability to chose game mode DOES NOT mean getting better Elo matchings!

Because I could care less about the ability to choose game mode; they are basically all the same to me.

Even Conquest, which is the most dynamic of the three because it encourages movement, can be played the same as the other two modes without much deviation.

In fact, Assault and Skirmish should just be removed.

[Christo Jam]

A good mechwarrior can adapt to any game mode .... Vote equality, vote "Yes".

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mekwarrior, on 08 October 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

I am a player that plays exclusively skirmish since that's what I like.

I'd be surprised if there aren't a large number of other players who also enjoy a certain game type also.

Seriously, ppl should post their game mode stats (how do you format that right by the way). Im betting we will see a pattern in the ppl that are pissed at this choice.

tinfoil on

The original poll choices were skewed to get a certain answer (just like this is and just like any poll they put out) theyve said they cant roll back the choice because they dont have enough devs to do it so we're stuck with it till CW, Im thinking that a certain game mode was getting less players so they had to do this to beef up that que.

Im thinking one of the ques hit a player number danger mark where it made the que times super long. Ive never saw waits in excess of 1 min ever in this game and that includes dropping with CI (who apparently inflate my elo being that I then run against guys like Heimdelight - who Id NEVER see solo) but thats just dropping skirmish and assault, never conquest, as my stats show.

tinfoil off

Ah, thats better

[Haipyng]

Certain mech types work far better on certain maps, just as certain load outs work better on certain map types. We never had a choice on the first part, but really My Spider-5D with the capture accelerator is great on Conquest and can be okay on Assault maps, pretty useless on a skirmish maps. I now have to drop with it several times to actually get a conquest map, usually drawing skirmish? What the heck? People often play the other map types as skirmish as it is because the rewards for objectives have to be kept low to avoid abuse.

I am all for evening out the Large Group MM, but reducing player choice is not it.

[Felix Jongleur]

Here is my biggest issue with all of this.

Your match maker is still terrible, beyond terrible and it is personally the biggest issue to making team game play boring as hell.

The wait queue times for myself and a single friend teamed up playing the least played mechs is still on average 3-5 minutes.

Let me say that again 3-5 minutes! For a 2 man team playing lights typically. . . A mech weight class so gutted in the current game play that no one really wants to play them.

The issue then is that because a friend and I queued we will pull matches of 10man premade, and if we are lucky we might have a 4 man premade on our team. Your match maker is balls.

We then get to deal with the fact that 50% of the time match maker then places us on different lances. I'm sorry PGI but I didn't team queue with a single friend to be put on what ever lance you guys wanted. Right away this breaks any synergy people have and at which point you may as well have queued on a solo match.

The ELO is being tanked in team matches because of the above points.

A: Terrible Match maker
B: Insane wait times wears on peoples paitence to play more than a few games.
C: Lances being broken eliminating any kind of higher strategy or pre-match synergy.
D: ELO is this magical thing only you can calculate. I've said this a few times now give us the math in which you are calculating things because it is now obvious the community will give you a much better solution.

I will not vote because I can't in good honesty vote on a broken system like this without fixes happening.

[Random Wanderer]

Bhael Fire, on 08 October 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

Because I could care less about the ability to choose game mode; they are basically all the same to me.

Even Conquest, which is the most dynamic of the three because it encourages movement, can be played the same as the other two modes without much deviation.

Tell that to the teams who run off to cap and abandon me to die alone in Conquest. Repeatedly.

[WarHippy]

If this finishes in a close margin regardless of outcome the change needs to be reverted because it was changed after a poll that clearly was faulty. If it ends 80%+ for yes this time then fine so be it, but a controversial change like this should never have happened if the community is heavily divided on it.

To Russ,

Assuming this change stays in place can you please do something to improve these game modes so they are both different and interesting? You have used the excuse that things like conquest mostly end in a skirmish type fight anyway so it shouldn't matter, but it does. You have not made map objectives that are worthwhile, nor have you rewarded players for doing anything other than deathmatch. If this new system is going to continue you need to update these game modes and their rewards so that people at the very least don't mind playing them. If you have to delay CW another 6 months so be it, but forcing people to play crappy game modes is not acceptable.