972 replies to this topic

[JoJoxy]

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.

Not sure if this is extortion or blackmail

[jackal404]

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 05:57 AM, said:

That has always been the case. If you can't effectively train in the queue, there is always the option of private matches.

No. The option for private matches exist only for those with premium time. If my casual group wants to train, then two of the four/five must buy premium time to host the match - then we are two on two.

This option may work for those in the competitive groups, but not for us casual players. In fact, solo queue is the only place for casual players to have a chance of getting decent matches, we certainly don't get that in the group queue.

[XPhoenix]

Biggest reason I votted No.

How competitive can you really set up to be if every game mode is semi random?

If you vote yes what is closer ELO going to do for you if you cannot set up a Deck ment for conquest vrs skirmish, because you DO NOT bring the same mechs in conquest as you do in skirmish.

Why have different game modes at all.... and FFS the que times are longer....

Vote No.

[Sergei Pavlov]

It seems impossible to satisfy this community...

I feel the new matchmaking system is a huge improvement over the previous, so keep up the good work, PGI.

[Bilbo]

Mazerius, on 08 October 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

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.

I have conquest and skirmish selected, yet I have almost twice as many drops in skirmish 2325/1491. That should give you an idea. Honestly, I'd deselect skirmish but my wait times are already long enough.

[EvilCow]

There is an intrinsic asymmetry in what is given and what is removed.

The advantage is purely hypothetical and non-measurable by just playing, statistically you should have marginally better games because the MM has more data (compatible waiting players) to work on.

On the other had what is removed is very perceivable and important for those players who have clear preferences, that same people is willing to accept longer wait times in order to NOT play something so it really matters to them.

Of course those that don't mind about the game mode would take their advantage no matter how marginal it is and screw the others.

Edited by EvilCow, 08 October 2014 - 10:33 AM.

[Jeb]

The trick isn't to try to force people to play things they don't' like, it's to make the things people don't like better and actually fun to play...

[Harbinger Prime]

I would like the reinstatement of mode selection in the solo queue . I personally hate CONQUEST mode and would rather not see it. 8 times out of 10 you get a team that total ignores the resource meter and you lose because they didn't kill the last Mech who was hiding, powered down somewhere.

[JoJoxy]

EvilCow, on 08 October 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

There is an intrinsic asymmetry in what is given and what is removed.

The advantage is purely hypothetical and non-measurable by just playing, statistically you should have marginally better games because the MM has more data (compatible waiting players) to work on.

On the other had what is removed is very perceivable and important for those players who have clear preferences, that same people is willing to accept longer wait times in order to NOT play something so it really matters to them.

Of course those that don't mind about the game mode would take their advantage no matter how marginal it is and screw the others.

Well someone should appoint an ethical review committee then and get this over with

[TuranicRaider]

this is a game in which you can supposedly customize your battlemech to fulfill a role in a mission. now you have never let us choose which map we play on, which in beta was a minor issue (minor due to the similarities in the maps, especially size) and one i thought you would fix when you started making big maps. after all, it makes more sense for immersion to know where we will have to use our mech to generate some scrap metal and build it accordingly. no sane person would willingly drop into alpine peaks with a hunchback packing only medium lasers and an ac 20. so what, we aren't supposed to build these types of mech?

now, on top of the above, you won't let us know what the mission is you want us to complete in the location to where we don't know we are going? what's next? random mechs chosen regardless of which we choose? why not remove the customization completely? and the different variants? and why not the different chassis? and then why not even the weight classes. then everybody can pilot the same mech and every match would be perfectly balanced. if this is the kind of crap you are spending our money on, i'd happily take it back.

lots of people are quick to attack balance(weapons, mechs or matchmaker, whatever) when they lose the game, but you never hear any winner say: "hey, we won by too great a margin, i'm gonna go ***** on the forum so they nerf my weapons or throw all you in the other team next round!"
nor do you ever see a loser who says:"yeah, sorry i played like a dipshit and screwed you all!" sometimes you will get a **** team, and no amount of tuning to the matchmaker will change that. every game that has a winner, has a loser. and people who don't get that better start playing candy games or whatever games that have neither.

my point is (if you missed it) that it is impossible to play this game effectively without building an all rounder mech. and if that is the idea, i don't get the point of having the option to ruin the mech. how hard would it be to choose which mechs we take where and on which missions? how many people are thinking about this problem? and why is this the best you can come up with? i would rather spend twice the time in a lobby than hide in a hole on alpine peaks, or get buried in warheads because i brought a brawler to a long range fight. i have supported you since i got access to the beta, and would continue to do so, but not if this is the direction you are taking this game. not choosing a map is bad enough, don't force us to play broken game modes. (they are broken the moment you throw us in with the wrong mechs, and it goes for the maps too)

[XPhoenix]

As if the Game was not dead enough, create a feature that drives a wedge through the remaining players... typical PGI, don't have IGP to throw under the bus for this one Russ. *golf clap*

[Alienized]

since there wont be 75% for yes ever to be reached, close this. its done and we all know it. rollback and let the [redacted] have it.

Edited by John Wolf, 10 October 2014 - 05:07 AM.
Unconstructive

[Bhael Fire]

Mazerius, on 08 October 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

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.

Exactly. Not sure why anyone would care what game mode they play, as they are all essentially the same...except Conquest gives you more available tactics to use.

[HiProfile]

Sergei Pavlov, on 08 October 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

It seems impossible to satisfy this community...

What makes a picky consumer happy? Letting them decide or telling them "you get what we decide"? With a decade of retail experience, I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY you give them options. Even if most choices are crap, they'll feel even more certain what they want.

[Cimarb]

My take on this.

First, there is an issue in wording. Being from 'Murica, when you say we are voting for something - in this case game mode - the way I intuitively read that is "majority wins". That is not the case here. From talking to several in my unit, they had the same impression. Therefore, either stop using the terminology "vote", or change how the vote happens.

Here is how I would prefer it to happen...

1. Voting happens how it does now.
2. Once votes are tallied, the majority wins.
3. If there is a tie, randomly choose one of those tied options.

This would be catering to the people that are on the majority, which should be the case anyways, without giving an automatic chance of giving a game mode that a single player happened to select by laziness.

On top of that, Conquest has to be brought in line with the rewards from the other two game modes. Currently, the rewards for doing X are drastically less on Conquest than Skirmish/Assault, since the difference is made up for by resource gathering, which requires a full 15 minute match to earn. Either the resource bonus needs to be on top of the rewards of combat (meaning there are more rewards), or some sort of element needs to be added to Assault/Skirmish to equate to resources in Conquest while reducing the rewards of combat down to what Conquest gives.

Now, regardless of what game mode is chosen, I want to go on record saying that this is just a game, and dropping a match because of the stupid game mode is extremely childish. Just do your best in the Team Deathmatch mode you wind up in and move on to the next match. If you do not like leaving the choice up to so many other people, join a group man! This is a team-based game, for Heaven's sake, so quit thinking that everything revolves around your "Army of Me". /rant

There needs to be some sort of restriction preventing players from dropping at the beginning of a match and immediately going into another match ad infinitum until they get what game mode (and/or map) they want.

Having gotten that off my chest, here is the proper way to handle things, both in the game and out: share your side of the story and offer a solution that meets the change criteria. In this case, the change criteria is PGI needs to remove some of the hard locks involved in the matchmaker process. The hard lock in question that needs removed is the game mode, so that is what needs changed. If you have a better way of removing that hard lock, like I just offered at the beginning of this post, then share it so we can move forward, instead of being stuck in an argument over which type of Deathmatch you would like to play...

[BUBBLEZ420]

we already cant choose the map and not beingh able to choose mode as well makes this game a bit ...lame

[Raby760]

It's been about 10 minutes now since I've been waiting for MWO to search for a match. If this is the result of the changes, I vote NO!

And I HATE conquest. Every time I get conquest while PUGing, I will kill myself at the beginning of the match. I will either overheat my mech and override the shutdown, or I will run out of bounds. I am willing take any penalties to my score.

Also, I haven't heard of any HUDs showing XP points gained for fighter pilots scoring kills. But, at least I have the option to change it back to the classic view.

(I'm probably about 5 minutes into typing this comment, editing, and clarifying where possible, and MWO is still searching for a match)

Edited by Raby760, 08 October 2014 - 10:45 AM.

[Lt Badger]

Sergei Pavlov, on 08 October 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

It seems impossible to satisfy this community...

I feel the new matchmaking system is a huge improvement over the previous, so keep up the good work, PGI.

this survey should never take place
only reason is to split the community and destroy the fun with this game

[Maverick Howell]

Its fine how it is now as of this patch. Because all these modes are pretty much the same. However once more modes are put in then maybe we should consider chaging it again.

[Voivode]

Mazerius, on 08 October 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

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.

I leave conquest and assault checked. Can't stand skirmish. My play style and builds are best for mobile warfare and the sitzkrieg that is skirmish is almost never fun for me. I don't even care about the bases in conquest. If my team loses by cap but we won the brawl, then I'm cool with how the match turned out.