972 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

I don't have a horse in this race. The groups I play with have always chosen "Any" so we can find a match quickly, and adjust our tactics accordingly. IMO, they're all the same game mode anyway, I mean, you can achieve victory the same way in all 3 modes, so it's not like there's really a difference, and most end up being played as a TDM anyway.

Having said that, I see this topic being responsible for the most "Confirmation Bias" witnessed on the forums since "Premades are responsible for every loss I've suffered" back in Closed BETA.

Carry on.

[Alienized]

i dont know if i should call all the skirmish only players as dumb CoD kids or not.... have to discuss that with myself for a while now.

i love this game for beeing NOT a simple shooter.
river city assault is NOT camp the base. its just because YOU MAKE IT THAT WAY. you dont put any thoughts behind it. you just play it that way. the simple easy way. i love to rush up and away from base, luring enemies out of the city so they can be crushed. or open a flank up where the other side has to work on.
typical skirmishers will propably never do this. they can play good but they cant think 2 steps ahead.

so a clear YES from my side. if you want to keep your HIGH ELO just because you play skirmish only and run around in fat blobs of 12 mechs then go for the no.

[Mystere]

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

My favorite part is the no crowd demanding the feature be rolled back unless the yes votes get a 75%+ majority.

I believe it is because Russ said something to that effect. I am trying to find that post.

*** Edit ***

A new one works just as well:

Russ Bullock, on 08 October 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Please guys, I am not going to let this feature stay in with some 53% majority so stick to the conversation and vote.

It's looking like the feature is on the way out.

Edited by Mystere, 08 October 2014 - 09:53 AM.

[Mastergrunt9]

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Because some of us remember a time before ELO and weight based matchmaking, and we all (at least those of us interested in fair, competitive matches over endlessly blasting unsuspecting PUGs who haven't even figured out throttle controls yet) very much agree that the match quality and gameplay got a million times better once we were no longer fighting full teams of assaults and fighting players who know which end of the mech makes the loud noises.

then explain to me why one minute i'm fighting with competent teammates and then the next i'm fighting with people who don't know the difference between an AC and a Laser

[Styxx42]

MajorFlack, on 07 October 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

I like the game mode(s) I select. I play certain mechs (typically assault/heavy) for those and different mechs for conquest (mediums/lights). Being forced into a undesired game mode just adds another layer of frustration to the game.

Well Said MajorFlack and I feel the same way.

New Change is not to my liking. Why force players to play a game mode they don't want to so the players that do can have they game THEY want?

[Conreg]

On the upside of all this.... perhaps people with strong opinions will be more inclined to understand and stay up to date with game features. Maybe even read one of those threads where people communicate in a way that isn't reminiscent of children complaining.

All in all... I voted no. Training pilots is hard enough in public queue when half my group is high elo, while the others are freshmeat.... now with any game mode and crazy unpredictable lance configurations for groups 5-10, you can expect frustration trying any tactical instruction outside of a private lobby.

[Tark989]

Silliest thing you have done yet...and believe me that is saying something.

[Bhael Fire]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Youre saying that because you feel a certain way, those who dont should be forced to do what you want and go piss up a rope. How was me having a choice to what I played ruining your enjoyment of the game?

No, I'm just saying that having closer, more competitive matches is more important than having the ability to choose the game mode since each game mode is essentially the same.

The matchmaker has a much harder time doing its intended job the more restrictions you place on it. Personal opinions aside, I think it is an objective statement to say that giving people tighter matches is more important than giving them the ability to choose the game mode they play — since their choice affects everyone.

It's kind of like being in a situation where there are limited resources like water and you have some people that are complaining that they want the ability to use three gallons of water per day when the rest of the people are trying to get them to ration the water responsibly with 1 gallon per day so that everyone gets a fair share.

"But if we ration the water, then you are depriving people of choice!"

Sometimes choice has to take a backseat when it comes to equality.

[VanillaG]

Kay Wolf, on 08 October 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

That is an extraordinarily narrow-minded way of looking at what I said. Shame on you. We do not roll off an assembly line, we are not robots, we each have our preferences, and I tend to listen to the majority of my people. What you said, here, is offensive and ignorant.

It was not meant to be offensive. If your team truly does not care about what mode drop in leave them all enabled and you can always bring whatever mechs you want. But when you do this you need to realize that you will most likely go up against teams that do limit their game modes and make mech choices based on the modes that they have selected. This is not a MM problem, it is a team problem.

The main issue that I had with your suggestion is that dilutes the voting power of the team. If all members want to vote the same way they would need to go into their personal preferences and modify them each time they wanted to change. For now, the team vote option is the best solution.

[ChapeL]

I don't like conquest as it currently is but I'll still play it if it comes up. On the other hand, the matches I have been involved in have been quite challenging and could have gone either way. I think it's working.

[-=Heloc=-]

Russ Bullock, on 08 October 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

I accept how you feel and can respect it. But this is a statement that is unfair. I mean we truly felt we followed a process on this feature implementation that was asked for by the community. Ask you guys and listen. We felt that is exactly what we did.

Okay did we misunderstand? or maybe the original poll should not have been run until the better explanations were provided? Perhaps so - that is why we are running the poll again. Speak as a community now and if necessary I will roll out the feature no later than the Oct 21st patch.

I don't think it there was a problem with the implementation, the explanations, or the rollout. I think it's a difference between theory and experience.

People read the explanations and knew this was coming (or at least, some of them did) and they thought that it wouldn't be a big deal. Then they started being forced to play game modes that they didn't like and the experience left a sour taste in their mouths.

I read about the change in the patch notes and thought, "Oh, that's a change that makes sense. It'll be okay if I have to play a few rounds of conquest."

Now that I've actually had to play some rounds with this change in place, I really hate it.

PGI couldn't have known what the reaction was really going to be to a change like this until it was live.

[Negaman1971]

Sorry I didn't read all 38 pages of notes before this, so if I'm repeating earlier sentiments...too bad.

I voted "no". I HATE conquest. My complaint is that except for perhaps Solaris and military war-game exercises, I just don't see how a capture the flag scenario would work in an actual 'mech contract. When I play, I like to imagine that I'm part of a merc unit or military force actually doing a contract or assignment that means something to someone (I know it sounds goofy, but it's my dime, so why not?). And though I have problems with the other scenario types, I can at least somewhat get behind them (although assault makes almost no sense--generally BOTH sides won't have a base that near each other; what is this, Red Vs. Blue?).

To me, skirmish makes the most sense from a merc contract point of view, but I still opt in for assault because I like the idea of taking out an enemy base--even if it is ridiculous that I have my own base set up so close.

As for the inclusion of Conquest as game-mode for the sake of people who are used to this sort of thing in first-person shooters and other games, fine, I get it...I just don't want to be forced to play it.

[wicm]

18 drops 3 for the mode of my "choice".... I WONT play with silly bases.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Russ Bullock, on 08 October 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

I was actually worried it is worded very much in favor of the No.

If I am able to get a link into the patcher this morning and non forum goers come in to vote, they likely won't have read any of the explanation posts or really know what ELO is.

They will just read #2 saying that they get to play the modes they want to and vote NO.

In kind of like to see the poll redone in a non biased manner but Im in the minority

The way I read it a vote for no is a vote against elo and that seems to be what a lot of ppl here are saying as well (even the ones that have to be joking about that)

[StonedDead]

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 08:35 AM, said:

Because some of us remember a time before ELO and weight based matchmaking, and we all (at least those of us interested in fair, competitive matches over endlessly blasting unsuspecting PUGs who haven't even figured out throttle controls yet) very much agree that the match quality and gameplay got a million times better once we were no longer fighting full teams of assaults and fighting players who know which end of the mech makes the loud noises.

But that could also be fixed in other ways. I'd rather see a tonnage/BV match than ELO cause it seems to be overly complicated. At least we could figure out or BV without calling a mathematician.

I remember those matches though. Sometimes they were fun. Picking on the noob player when out of nowhere this bad ass Jenner pilot comes in and wipes the entire team out, lol. You remembered names. Because if you didn't, that bad ass pilot would take you by surprise again the next time. I also still see good players thrown in with noobs, so where is the difference?

[Haipyng]

Mastergrunt9, on 08 October 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

How about this for an option... GET RID OF ELO! It's more of a pain than it is a helpful tool. Seriously... randomize. You guys keep talking about fixing ELO, and speeding up matchmaking times based on the 3333 model... stop... no really, STOP. I've been playing for a little less than a year now and the matchmaking system is completely broken. So to actually post something helpful I'll give you a couple of the suggestions I've come up with in my group of friends.

I have to say the more I think about this, the more I wonder if ELO is even useful in the large group queue. It works great in Solo. But with certain classes and builds working better on certain maps and game types, does it really help? Its really random. Depending on what you drop with and get for a map.

It's more about the size of the group and how well they play together that affects the outcome of the large group queue.

[Josef Nader]

Mastergrunt9, on 08 October 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

then explain to me why one minute i'm fighting with competent teammates and then the next i'm fighting with people who don't know the difference between an AC and a Laser

Confirmation bias paired with your team making a tactical error and getting out-manuvered. Just because the team skill is even doesn't mean it's not possible for your team to make a blunder and get caught with your pants down by a team that was in the right place at the right time.

[Roadbeer]

Egomane.

I saw you browsing the thread and suddenly a screengrab that is perfectly relevant to the conversation, even though it shows players engaging in an act that is against the CoC/ToS was removed.

This is information that is needed in the conversation, and IMO you made a bad call.

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 October 2014 - 08:48 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 08:11 AM, said:

That is not true:

It was true "at the time" (thats a joke)

I didnt see the later post till right now, but being that the poll is winning and it phrased to get that result...

Russ Bullock, on 08 October 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

Buddah did you really state that I said we would not be able to roll the change back? Sometimes it really does seem like your trying hard to cause trouble - truly.

Of course we will roll it out. I will roll it out Oct 21st if not in a hotfix before then.

I was quoting directly what you said...

How am I making trouble by quoting you?

[Project_Mercy]

If people don't like assault or conquest (which they don't), then the negative sentaments should not be about whether this change is implemented or not, but what is going to be done to make conquest or assault actually fun. Why put in all the time and effort (not only on implementing the game mode, but slowing down future map development) for modes people don't appear to like?

As for 3/3/3/3, that's one of the few reasons I started playing the game. The old system of trying to make a spider = dire wolf I found to be asinine, and a deal breaker for me. 3/3/3/3 doesn't need to be loosened, it needs to be strengthened, so you only get 1/1/1/1 for every full/partial lance of people in your group. So if you have a 3-man group, you don't have 3 people in timberwolves giving MM heartburn.