972 replies to this topic

[Angel of Annihilation]

I think part of the issue is we really don't understand Elo. I mean is 50 a bit number? How about 250? or does 250 represent only a 2-5% difference in skill? Without some sort of frame of reference it is hard to make informed decisions.

As for me, I personally don't care as I typically like the variety offered by all game modes so I would be just as happy if they removed voting or choosing as an option.

I guess if I have to chose one, might as well just make it so people can choose what they want to play because no matter how you tweak ELO your always going to have stomps just due to the nature of the game. Honestly I doubt players who aren't on the forums are even really noticing any differences in ELO but not being able to choose is very noticable even to someone not active in the community.

[Dagor1]

I also would like to say I am impressed with Russ and PGI on how they are currently handling the matter.

Also, got in a few group matches today...wait times unchanged....balance...seems unchanged, but I did not have enough matches to say other then "seems".

Though, in group, a majority of matches were skirmish, and as group leader I had it unchecked, so, that did not really make me happy....So far, a marginal gain...if any for loss of choice.

[Osric Lancaster]

Kitty Bacon, on 08 October 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

Yes... if 3/3/3/3 didn't work we would see 5-6 Dire Wolves per 12 man team with 2 Gauss and a bunch of lasers. Or worse yet, just a full team of Timber Wolves since they are the dominant mech. 3/3/3/3 needs to be in for group drops xD

So instead we have a system where I can't launch in an Orion because the queue is 60% heavies, and if I 'do' get launched into a match my Orion will be opposed with a timber wolf? If there are 12 direwhales in the solo launch queue then each side gets six, and what's the problem? Like I said, value matching instead of forced team class compositions.

It's the same noise people do when anyone suggests replacing 'x' bad system with 'y' system.
"Don't take away 'x' it keeps 'z' from happening!"
Look at the problems with 'x' and whether or which problems 'y' would or would not solve.

Anyway, this is getting off topic-ish, it's just that a lot of the issues in MWO are interconnected.
Hell, there wouldn't BE such a huge disparity between 'Mech classes is lights had a better role.
Love this thing that was brought up when ECM was briefly on the table, by the way;
http://mwomercs.com/...99#entry3417099

Edited by Osric Lancaster, 08 October 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[ZealotTheFallen]

Russ you still are going to say what you want. You wording is perfect to twist it around and with a politically correct LIE Do what you want. Same thing different day.



All pleasure in this SO Call game, has been drained from me . This new force mode, now we pray for a map that will utilize the abilities of the mech we picked to drop in.

All the drive you are using to make this a First person shooter, destroying teamwork. Seems you are trying to secretly work this on console in steam. Have 12 spawn points that pop up equal distant apart from each other. Trully random and with many variations on spawn. 16 plus.

You took this game, did not care about the (Real players0 that wanted a game to brag about. Having well oiled lances and teams of any number mechs, feared by all opponents.

A guild or clan horde with the daily man power to field 3 12 man teams or more. With others within the group run the 2,4 man teams for scouting a planet for intel. And or fighting for the rights to be the first.

1 The smallest planets or ones furthest from civilization are scouted by solos, fighting duels for all benefits that are giving to full teams. The next size up but still only relay planets for supplying our armadas, 2 man and 4 man teams.

2 Solo queue, not part of the planetary battles, but still recieve any benefits giving to their own Faction and continue making xp, cbs,etc as now. Then a % on the players cb intake and xp are sent directly to their Factions pool, where the top officers use these resources to bye equipment to resupply the first groups of scouts.

These smaller groups check off all needed ground units and or ones repairable to hold their section of planet. During this stage, you need to watch for enemy attacks that may or maynot happen.

3 Second battles would be 4, 8, or 12, depending on size of planet.


Wall of text, sorry. I know I am straight forward on how I feel about the changes. Not politically correct in this day and age, I am just demonstrating how things were handled when a large majority of the population took care of injustice, lying, or public bullies at the moment things start, by any means publicly, (public embarrassment) or (physically by any means necssary, :not killing: (keeping that person in line for rest of the school year.)

I have always loved this game from board game through every game till now. It is so hard to play now. Since clan arrived playing solo and team win/loss 5954 wins 3958 losses archived current 1072 wins 1133 kill/death archived 1.41 current .93

I am not the best pilot or worse, but something just doesn't fit

Edited by ZealotTheFallen, 08 October 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Appogee]

But but but...

I am undecided.

.

[Thragen]

Perhaps PGI should expand the use of its email blast to include important polls started by PGI. In this way, PGI might get a better turnout on their polls. Another suggestion might be to craft an email where you can vote by just clicking a link.

Food for thought!

[Redleg37]

I want to vote yes, I really do; however, what I see PGI doing is making extensive changes to conquest in the future and us not getting any choice in game mode because we voted yes on this poll once. For now I am compelled to vote no.

At this time there really isn't enough difference in game modes to matter, they almost always come down to killing everyone on the other team.

[Barfing Gopher]

Thragen, on 08 October 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

Perhaps PGI should expand the use of its email blast to include important polls started by PGI. In this way, PGI might get a better turnout on their polls. Another suggestion might be to craft an email where you can vote by just clicking a link.

Food for thought!

If I had seen this on fb I might have voted in the initial poll.... Now I'm stuck playing crap matches I hate. But there are other games.

[Bilbo]

Thragen, on 08 October 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

Perhaps PGI should expand the use of its email blast to include important polls started by PGI. In this way, PGI might get a better turnout on their polls. Another suggestion might be to craft an email where you can vote by just clicking a link.

Food for thought!

I would never vote on anything by clicking a link in an email. Letting a wider audience know a vote is taking place is a good idea though.

[HiProfile]

Voting YES will result in no change to load times, but WILL result in people leaving MWO. People not wanting to play a certain mode will either quit the match or not play entirely. Do you really think a 10:12 match or an ELO pool with 25% fewer players will lead to more balance?

Voting NO will result in those wanting to have fun to still have fun. If the majority wants SKirmish, they won't be impacted because the majority will still be in the ELO pool. It's like letting the poor keep their rags while the rich don't get their 5th Ferrari.

[Thragen]

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

I would never vote on anything by clicking a link in an email. Letting a wider audience know a vote is taking place is a good idea though.

Nor do I but some do!

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Where is the option for fun game modes that are dyanmic and encourage role warfare, lance warfare and would make everyone want to play them?

Oh wait.

[Mechwarrior29081924]

I like Russ, I like PGI and I like the game.
Of course - I want improvements in team ELO differences, if possible (in fact the MM is of no use). But I'm solo player and THERE IS no remarkable improvement in ELO differences for solo players- your own words and facts.
Why, would you please explain to me, should I play in game modes I hate, for NOTHING? Is that a joke? I gave you my good money for Direwolves, and now i'm stayin in Conquest with my Direwolf like a childish noob?

That question is an ESSENTIAL für many many players, and you could have known that. The first poll was quick off the mark. Give me my choice back, that's no point of discussion for me.

[Rebas Kradd]

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

I would never vote on anything by clicking a link in an email. Letting a wider audience know a vote is taking place is a good idea though.

Make it an item in the launcher, then.

[Bhael Fire]

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 09:46 AM, said:

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.

It's by no means a "false analogy" at all. It might be a little abstract, but it hits the heart of the problem.

When a player eliminates a game mode as an acceptable option for them, the matchmaker has a harder time doing its job in making sure everyone else has a quality match.

In other words, they are using more than their share of "water" so everyone else ends up suffering for it.

But all this seems pointless, since it seems the voting system is getting rolled back anyway.

[Thragen]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 October 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Make it an item in the launcher, then.

That's a pretty good idea!

[Mazerius]

Man am I like the only person that normally leaves all modes selected? Theyre pretty much all skirmish at this point anyways, and for the folks hating conquest, Why? if anything the caps allow you to finish a game quicker when that "one *******" hides and powers down.

[Lt Badger]

HiProfile, on 08 October 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Voting YES will result in no change to load times, but WILL result in people leaving MWO. People not wanting to play a certain mode will either quit the match or not play entirely. Do you really think a 10:12 match or an ELO pool with 25% fewer players will lead to more balance?

Voting NO will result in those wanting to have fun to still have fun. If the majority wants SKirmish, they won't be impacted because the majority will still be in the ELO pool. It's like letting the poor keep their rags while the rich don't get their 5th Ferrari.

thats the reason why i´m voting with "no"

the only change is to get more people to disco or suizide, sometimes they attack teammates because they´re forced to play modes they don´t want and soon or later they will leave
and all this for saving some seconds?

what was so bad on old machmaker? everyone plays what he want, thats all
i prefer to wait a min longer and play my selected miode instead to be forced to play what i don´t want to play
people who want to play all modes simply choose al modes

[Rick Rawlings]

When you do revert this, please keep this thread visible. The cryharderie is epic and it will prevent me from scrambling to jot down a bunch of names of people I would like to keep very far away from my friends list and hope to never actually drop with...

[HUBA]

Matchmaker:
IMO elo is an important point but not that important that other factor can be left behind. It is more important that ever player is in a 250 points range then the teams. I believe it would be much more even if 2x 1600 elo player play against 2x 1500 then 1000 and 2000 against 2x 1500. In the hight elo range you can assume that the player bring good mechs and in the low elo range you can say the play style is so random that the mechs also not matter - and by the way I find the idea to bring new player on small maps with 4vs4 grate - but in the mid range the builds get important. You should be able to play every mech from a unmastered stock mech to maxed out meta build.

Voting
Normally a voting is decided by the majority. If you have 3 for assault 4 for skirmish and 5 for conquest the game would be conquest. I know it should also take care for the minority and let them also have some games they like. So lets say 1 of 10 like Conquest the 9 other voted for skirmish you say ok he has 10% chance to get his game and after 10 games he had a conquest game. Lets look at the happiness 9 games 9 happy one game 1 happy makes 82 happy to 18 sad the best you can get is 90 to 10. The first example is the calculation for max "happiness" the second is the most fair solution, every one has the same chance for his vote. Something in between could be square the votes so you get 9x9 (81) vs. 1x1 (1) a chance of less the 2% for a game mode only one want to play. If 2 want to play it is already above 5% and if you have 6 to 4 it will be 70% to 30%. This could give a much more satisfying voting because you will most times believe that the majority wants to play this game mode. But the best would be first to try to bring together who wants to play this mode and only if necessary mix this groups.

My opinion
If there is an improve on the MM I'm ok to play a few games I don't favor but as it is know it is a big impact on my usage and none noticeable impact on the MM so I'm upset and also getting angry if I have to play what I don't want. I'm sure that was not what you intended to achieve