972 replies to this topic

[Sandtiger]

Lily from animove, on 08 October 2014 - 06:52 AM, said:

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.

Not So! I LOVE stomps. Receiving and giving! I don't like Pyrrhic victories. I want to face opponents who force me to play better, think faster, and give me ideas for piloting my mechs. I like it when a stomp happens because I know that I am doing extremely well. Or I need to learn a few things.

My entire units skill goes Goku whenever we face a superior force. We have never had a problem being defeated.

I'll tell you what does bug us though. Assault and Conquest. We detest these game modes and will refuse to play them. Report us if you want, but that is how it will be.

[Dr Angst]

Reno Blade, on 07 October 2014 - 10:52 PM, said:

This needs some fat smiley/crying-smiley image for more attention in the launcher
I never checked the side with the news, as I only see the launcher + the main image until I click Play (and I guess most others too).

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 October 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

Boom

Why draw too much attention to an obvious mistake.

Create a goodlooking image and place it amongst the BIG scrolling images in the launcher instead.

[Bilbo]

Haipyng, on 08 October 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

It's clumsy, but it's better than building your game by the amount of players you gather or lose- another sort of voting. Frankly I think their engagement with this is spot on. This is a very positive thing.

I was speaking directly to politics in general. Still applies here though. If the MM needs improvement in certain areas, asking the community to agree to remove a feature they already have is almost never going to go the way it may need to go. Most don't care about the experience of others only the effect it has on them personally.

[HighTest]

Dr Angst, on 08 October 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Why draw too much attention to an obvious mistake.

Create a goodlooking image and place it amongst the BIG scrolling images in the launcher instead.

An Awesome slamming down a gavel. 'Nuff said!

[GeminiWolf]

I strongly vote No. I do not wish to play conquest mode ever. Forcing me to play a mode I do not wish to play makes for a non-fun experience. I strongly suggest dumping the Matchmaker as is and put into effect a random selection of players. I also strongly suggest that reducing the number of mechs in a match would reduce the LRM spam you see with 12 mechs in a match. Thank you for the time you took in reading this. Have a wonderful day. Happy Christmas. Hail the ilKhan. Do not spit into the wind. Support your local PGI. <Insert random comment here>

AAARRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooooooooooo.......................

[Russ Bullock]

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

I was speaking directly to politics in general. Still applies here though. If the MM needs improvement in certain areas, asking the community to agree to remove a feature they already have is almost never going to go the way it may need to go. Most don't care about the experience of others only the effect it has on them personally.

Yes - we will need to find other ways.

[Roadbeer]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

CW should be pushed back a bit to get a poll system into the launcher/game if these polls are going to lead directly to things that get put into the game.

I don't know that pushing back CW is that necessary,

But, IF UI.2 allows for the agility to make on the fly changes/injections to it as has been advertised, I remember hourly sales at one point, then it seems that with the "Items have been added to the inventory" message could also pop up with "Help us mold your future, read the poll here <link>"

Or, put it in the launcher like has been done with this one.

If Russ is looking for feedback, seems to me that would be the best way to get it.

[Isabelle]

Even though I rather dislike skirmish mode, I ended up voting yes, for the simple fact that the new game mode voting system allows for the implementation of more game modes without further dividing the player base into more game mode ques.

Since reducing the # of ques from 3 to 1 (what the new voting method does) improves ELO balancing, I figure doing the opposite by adding more game modes with the old selection method would make ELO balancing worse.

I would like to see new game modes, and I'd prefer to keep matches relatively balanced. So my vote is Yes to keeping the new voting system.

[Mystere]

Bhael Fire, on 08 October 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

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.

I do hope you realize what "false analogy" means.

And even then, the situation is actually more akin to some people wanting to use only one or two gallons to save water while the rest insist that you should use three.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Russ Bullock, on 08 October 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Yes - we will need to find other ways.

arg... Im leaving I swear it

How long WOULD it take to code and put in a poll system in the game/mechlab/launcher? As a ballpark I mean, as I doubt its just sitting around waiting to be turned on.

How long WOULD it delay CW to be able to directly tap into ALL your players for these polls? Given how important we're seeing these polls to BE there NEEDS to be a better way and an in game poll system is the best way I personally can think of to put this in front of as many people as possible

[Haipyng]

Russ Bullock, on 08 October 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

Yes - we will need to find other ways.

Involving player focus groups is a good way to get feedback. You just need to get a good cross section of players.

[Jolly Llama]

notjoe, on 08 October 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

I really don't like that you're forcing me to play game modes that I don't want to play. Especially since, in my opinion, 2/3 of the games modes are broken anyway (I'm looking at you assault and conquest).

What is the reasoning behind this change? Why does not having the choice of a game mode improve the quality of the match? Can't the same logic that is being used to create these so-called improved or better ELO matches be applied on a per game-mode basis?

Like a lot of you I have invested quite a bit of money into this game, a hell of a lot more than an tripple-a title, and yet I can't even chose what game mode I want to play. Please change it back

Stop spending money on this game. That is what I have done. I have plenty of mechs now and I won't spend a single dollar for any more while game modes are chosen for me and 3/3/3/3 is dictating how long I have to wait to play a mech I bought.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

If they keep this they need to allow us to have each mech saved with a mod build for each game mode in the mech bay and save them. Not weapons or any other builds, JUST MODS! For example. If I drop in skirmish I dont bring my cap acc. If I do drop in conquest or assault I want to bring my cap acc!


The main issue with this new system is you dont get a choice in the mods you would normally bring for X game mode. Pretty lame!

[HighTest]

Alright, enough from me -- back to work.

As a parting thought -- Russ, I'm really impressed. Whether or not this poll (or even forum thread) is going the way you wanted it to or expected it to, I am thoroughly impressed with your presence here and with what you guys are trying to do. Communicating this closely with your loyal player base is truly commendable. You have been way more active in this thread than I would have ever expected.

No matter how this works out, keep up the communication and the good work. It's nice to feel like the community is actually being listened to these days. If I, or we, can be of any help, just ask.

Thanks!

[Felbombling]

One thing I'd like to say is that the voting system Russ confirmed seemed a little strange to give some weight to a mode that had a very low vote tally. There should be a breaking point where the majority wins out. If 75% of the players selected Skirmish, for example, the 25% vote for Conquest should be thrown out the window. For more balanced matches, I could see that working fine.

[Lexx]

I can't believe more than 50% of the playerbase would vote to have our choice taken away.

Now I'm going to feel the need to mount a capture module, just in case I get Conquest mode, then feel I wasted a slot on it because it's pretty much useless in Skirmish and Assault.

Anything that takes away a players choice and forces them to do something they don't want to do is going to create a lot of backlash. I have some friends that are very upset about this change to the point they are thinking of quitting the game.

I don't think reducing the wait times a little bit is worth losing players over.

Edited by Lexx, 08 October 2014 - 09:55 AM.

[Deathlike]

I honestly don't know if I want to read 40+ more pages of this (on page 2, so my ETA to finish reading this is... tomorrow or something).

Why can't you simply incentivize this system? If you pick all modes, get a small 10% C-bill bonus for every match. You get 1 disconnect "allowed" within a 24 period for computer problems... but also a method of trying to avoid people abusing this system for the rewards while avoiding the mode they dislike.

While this isn't optimal, but it's better than "only one way or the other, but not both". I guess that's asking too much at this point.

Edited by Deathlike, 08 October 2014 - 09:55 AM.

[DasSibby]

I looked at both sides... and while I do think it'd be much better to have closer ELO's... I'm going to have to vote for, "choice" as even though most matches just turn into Deathmatch... I think those people who HATE Conquest shouldn't be forced to play it.

I guess I'd be more in favor of a different solution. Maybe with having two "lines" like at a Roller-Coaster. One is the, "Fast Lane" which could be those players who just want into any match. (Quick drop mode anyone?), The Second could be the "Slow Lane" (or the Selective Drop?), which wouldn't have placement priority, but would allow players who HATE certain modes to not drop in them.

So, there's my thoughts!

[Lil Cthulhu]

Despite the fact that you made this change to reduce wait times and provide an all around more even playing field, neither of those has proven true for me. The games I was in before this change were every bit as close as they are now and the wait time is literally exactly the same (5+ minutes every time).

[Reno Blade]

It might have been mentioned, but I'd change the order of the MM filtering and then use the game mode as release valve.

Say you got a limit of an 200 ELO difference and if the MM build a team with 250 that has the same game mode, but a team with 120 difference with a different mode, the MM release valve could "kick in" and use the better team match and use a different game mode which was not selected.

I think this would give better choices than using always voting + diceroll.