972 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

As for the ppl DCing because they dont like the game mode; maybe that should be noted, ppl dislike the change so much theyre willing to risk a ban rather than play on a mode they dont like (be it conquest, skirmish OR assault).

[Madcap72]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

So you dont want non playing customers to come back I take it?

Im curious Russ, are ppl who opt out of the game mode they want by DCing (alt f4) going to be reprimanded for doing that?

No, you're taking it like I'm inferring something when I'm asking a question.

How do you define customer, and how to you rate opinions? Should people with more skin in the game get a higher preferance than people that don't?

[Nightmare1]

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 agree that his Transverse statement was unfair. I would like to add, though, that I did not see the previous voting poll. It's probably my fault for missing it, but I normally am very good about keeping on top of things like this. Was it advertised on the main page like the current poll is? If so, then it's definitely my bad for missing it. If not, then I probably should have done some more digging in the forums over the last few weeks, and would like to politely recommend that future polls of such importance be listed on the main page with the rest of the Announcements. This would fix any clarification issues because then nobody could claim that they couldn't find it. Basically, putting such polls into that section places the burden of knowledge/action on us. If we don't vote in that event, then it's our fault for not communicating properly to you.

I will admit that I have been busy with RL these last couple of weeks, so it's possible that you already did what I am recommending, and I simply haven't seen it yet. In that case, please disregard.

I think your second statement is fair. Frankly, I'm just pleased that I get a chance to voice my opinion. Thanks!

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

Actually, ID like to know what % will win this. Another one of the yes guys said unless its 2/3rd or 3/4th majority then it shouldnt be seen as a win.

Id like to think ppl arent making alt accounts just to game the poll, you get warnings for things like that

There's Constitutional precedent for a 2/3's majority...

Frankly, it'll be a tough cake to slice no matter how PGI does it. The poll is so close, that regardless of how they cut it, they're going to make about half of their player base angry (based on current stats). I really pity them for that; the forums are going to be a hateful place post-Oct. 21st, and I'm sure that the PGI guys won't enjoy having to deal with all the angst.

[HammerMaster]

Haipyng, on 08 October 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Very valid points HammerMaster, but the rewards system is prone to abuse. No one had a fix for that other than very low rewards for those behaviors. It always comes back to the player. Do you want your team to win or do you want Cbills and XP?

Both! Of course!

[Harney]

Ok i am confused

Is this for Scottish independents

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

ski2060, on 08 October 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

What are you players going into CW going to do when a Conquest match comes up when attacking a planet? Just drop out and give the win to the Defenders? Or vice versa?

We arent in CW yet. When we get the structure of CW then we deal with that.

Is this mode of dropping like it is now going to be removed from the game when CW comes out?

And did the game just go into maint mode for anyone else?

[Russ Bullock]

Roadbeer, on 08 October 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Fair enough, while I'm not a fan of how the information was presented, a picture is worth 1,000 posts.

For me, it showed that people saying "Everyone is disconnecting because of this" wasn't just hyperbole.

Yes I understand - The "working as intended" is the main example of what we need to lose on the forums. Of course it isn't what we expected or intended. Nor am I trying to ram my point of view down peoples throats which is a comment I have seen lots on the forums.

I truly thought I followed a process that you the forum goers would respect.

As to a % to win?

My original thinking was that it has to be close to the original 80%, maybe as low as 70% with people now truly understanding what the trade off was. I am not going to keep the feature present with anything less than 70% which pretty much means the decision is already made.

[Necromonger Commander]

dan112476, on 08 October 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

I was going to rant about all the problems this game has but then I began to think. Why am I even playing this mess? While thinking about that, I found this poll and could only come up with two possible conclusions:

1. PGI is rigging the poll. In which case, I am done with MWO.
2. What remains of the MWO community is completely ******* stupid (on average). In which case, I am done with MWO.

So I guess I am done. This change did nothing to balance any matches and on top of that, we were stuck with game modes we did not want to play. Good-by PGI. Good luck with your Transverstite game.

What motive would they have for "Rigging the poll"? I follow every conspiracy theory, but this one is beyond my ability to swallow.

[wicm]

I reeeeeeealy (In my best Dr Cox from Scrubs) hope this down time is to fix this error in judgment called the last patch.

[Russ Bullock]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

As for the ppl DCing because they dont like the game mode; maybe that should be noted, ppl dislike the change so much theyre willing to risk a ban rather than play on a mode they dont like (be it conquest, skirmish OR assault).

Noted without a doubt

[Barfing Gopher]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

As for the ppl DCing because they dont like the game mode; maybe that should be noted, ppl dislike the change so much theyre willing to risk a ban rather than play on a mode they dont like (be it conquest, skirmish OR assault).

Exactly the point I was trying to make in one of my earlier posts in this thread. I wouldn't do it, but I saw it almost every match today. Of course, with over 500 invested in this game I would be risking a lot potentially losing my investment just because I didn't like this change.

Edited by Barfing Gopher, 08 October 2014 - 09:12 AM.

[Threat Doc]

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

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.

Russ, you DID exactly what the vocal minority of this community, including myself, asked for, and you have nothing apologize for, or to feel bad about. The problem is that the majority of players, as you've identified this problem multiple times, already, do not pay attention to these forums, when that's exactly what they should be doing. I would like to see more people, here, but I do not disagree with putting polls into the interface.

I'm tough on you guys, sometimes, but you have done what you said you would do, your track record has improved 100 fold since February 4th, and so you've nothing to be apologetic about. If a lazy ass community isn't willing to engage ahead of time, and instead expect you, and PGI, to dance to their thought-wave tune, they have no reason to complain. With that said, I HAVE been paying attention, you know that I'm here often and I participate, and even I have to say that, while your heart's are in the right place, your implementation, in this particular instance, is not what it could have been.

Let me finish writing my proposal for Battle Value (MWO) and let's see what you think. It might take a week or two for me to complete it.

[Russ Bullock]

wicm, on 08 October 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

I reeeeeeealy (In my best Dr Cox from Scrubs) hope this down time is to fix this error in judgment called the last patch.

Not it is for a few bugs introduced - like no match score.

If we roll this game mode voting out I will make a seperate patch.

[Lilferret]

Obviously this is a divisive topic. Why not have simply have a first available button?

I know I have several people on my friends list who are on hiatus until this is reverted.
I am not a big fan of not being able to choose my match type but it isn't enough for me personally to quit. The other guys feel differently.

[Chrithu]

Ok. Now I do not believe anymore that you just made a mistake Mechwarrior Buddah. You are doing this on purpose knowing full well what you're doing.

Here is the quote from Russ that you claim says the game mode selection wouldn't be reverted until after CW. It is on page two of this thread and I included the quote he answers to, which is one of your own posts:

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

...

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 08:37 PM, said:

Again....

Wouldnt an in game poll be better than polling the admitted minority as to where the game should go?

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.

This clearly is aimed at the in-game polling and ONLY at that. In no sense he is speaking about the game mode selection there and it is absolutely beyond me how you can interpret it that way just a few minutes after making your original post about polling ingame:

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

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.

so why is this poll a thing?

If it cant be fixed due to CW bottleneck, then why are we voting? For after CW?

I think you saw a chance there and use it to build up heat against PGI to have the vote go the way you want it to.

[Zainadin]

Coolant, on 08 October 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

This is an issue too...I've turned off most of the chat except lance because of it.

My main issue is the capping. Yesterday our team lost because of capping, even though we were up big in terms of kill/death ratio. I DON'T WANT TO PLAY A GAME TYPE LIKE THAT!

I like the upsets because of the extra meta to conquest games. if I wanted to skirmish or Assault I'd build a mech for them.

Thank you.

Edited by Zainadin, 08 October 2014 - 09:19 AM.

[KraftySOT]

Yeah to be completely fair I voted yes because I dont care what game mode it is.

I guess I should have voted NO. I dont really want to restrict other people from doing what they want. Ill play anything. Terra in a laser boat? Yes please. Doesnt bother me.

[Carthoo]

Haipyng, on 08 October 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Very valid points HammerMaster, but the rewards system is prone to abuse. No one had a fix for that other than very low rewards for those behaviors. It always comes back to the player. Do you want your team to win or do you want Cbills and XP?

I am a big fan of team play. I am always ready to lead the charge, even with 95% probability of me beeing the first KIA. But playing for team of "oh crap ill run so they wont kill me", "Ill help by shooting one lrm 5 from over there" or "Ill guard our rear side with my dire wolf"??

Thanks, Ill take the Cbills and xp, coz playing for team of these guys Ill end up playing same mech for months, coz no money for second version.

[wicm]

Yes I am willing to risk being banned so that I dont play less than desirable modes 78% of the time, because the alternative is not playing any more. It is a risk worth taking. Without a change the result is the same.

[Alienized]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 08 October 2014 - 09:06 AM, said:

Let me get out my decision matrix.

I almost always disable Conquest in my game mode selection. This on the surface, should lead to a NO choice for map voting. However, after further consideration, I realized I didn’t like conquest because an “any” selection that randomly dropped me into a Conquest match, pitted me against players who only choice Conquest. My problem isn’t so much the game mode, but the specialized meta-play it promotes.

It dawned on me that this is the same sort of behavior I abhor in any match. Meta-Players, those who attempt to externally modify the game environment in any way possible to give themselves the greatest in-game advantage, rather than compete on a level playing field normalizing mech/map/mode for individual skill and strategy.

I realized that the new Voting system actually enhances game diversity by penalizing those who specialize too much, whether they specialize in a slow damage front-loader, a peek-a-boo boat, or a cap-racer.

well said. thats exactly why i call people bad if they cant do anything else but use their one-direction mech. they can have good ELO and might be good in what they do but remain terrible players. its easy to be good in one thing, the challenge is to be good in them all. with mechs that can handle them all. every noob can be good with a specialized mech.
are you afraid that people will see how bad you actually are? is it that why you dont want to play certain modes?