972 replies to this topic

[Kyle Polulak]

Because I managed to break the original, here's a new version of the poll.

There will be no further edits.

Russ Bullock, on 07 October 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

At this point everyone who has played will understand how the feature works. We did everything possible in several different threads to describe exactly how it would work but it still seems to have caught some players off guard.

I am open to putting this to another poll. Yes I realize that these forums only represent a small number of our players but at the moment this is my only way to access our players. There are good suggestions to build polling capabilities into the launcher, but I don't have that functionality currently.

In the past you expressed your desire for Piranha to listen more to forum polls, now we are. Therefore we shouldn't now express that these polls are insufficient.

Some quick information from the small amount of data we have gathered so far. The solo queue remains consistent at an average ELO difference of 50, so still solid but no real change. The group queue has dropped from an average ELO difference of ~250 to around ~160-180. So yes in the brief amount of time the feature has been active it has made a stronger impact than I had hoped for and should be resulting in a measurable improvement. Turning this new voting system off will mean going back to levels closer to 250.

There is also the possible option of leaving the voting option only in the group queue. However from what I have read here on the forums there may be just as many complaints. Also it would need new UI functionality to explain to players the different functionality between solo and group queue's.

So please vote again and I will leave the poll open for at least a week. When the poll is complete if necessary we will remove the voting system from the game at the next patch. Since the game was active for so long with the game mode hard selection in place I think it is only fair to the community that the vote needs to come out with a strong majority again.

[Darth Futuza]

But but Niko, it was just bad cached data. You could have ctrl + f5'd it.

[Gremlinn]

VOTE NO!!! Save mechwarrior.

No=you get to chose your mode of gameplay
Yes=you get a slightly closer match (only about a 50 elo closer)

BTW what is an elo and how can one figure it out. Are our elo's in the thousands? In the 200's? what??? If it is in the 1000's then 50 is nothing, if it is up to 100 per mech...still that means only closer of about 4 pts per mech. 50 elo is nothing in my opinion. You use the word improvement in the question, Why can't we have both? The vagueness is great. I read the question and said yes, that is what I want, but I also want the second option. Why can't you say in the question, in option 1 under yes, but you won't be able to choose your gameplay mode. It is not all positive like the question leads you to believe. You don't get just a better Elo, however, minuscule it may be.

Also if you want to get down to brass tax...shouldn't the people who pay for the free players to play get more of a vote than the free players? One of the problems with free to play games is that everyone has the same weight of a vote and an unequal investment.

I am not saying I could have missed the prior poll, but I scour the forums often and I sort by date so I don't miss any forums in the Announcements or the Command Chair. Any polls should be there or in its own main forum. I searched for this poll and I just noticed this is in "General Discussion" not an appropriate place to make a game ending, I mean changing decision.

Edited by Gremlinn, 07 October 2014 - 08:41 PM.

[FinnMcKool]

Plz , guys your better than this.

[Monky]

POLLPOCALYPSE 2014

I vote yes under the assumption we're talking group queue only. Group queue needs tighter elo somehow, even if it means having to put up with conquest every now and then. The wording is unclear on the question if this is what is meant however, I don't support the voting for solo queue since it isn't evidenced to improve elo spread.

Edited by Monky, 07 October 2014 - 08:25 PM.

[Sovery_Simple]

Just to clarify before anyone gets confused

"Yes" always means you LIKE not picking your game mode.
"No" always means you HATE not picking your game mode.


If you want to merely "vote" for a mode, pick yes.
If you want to know that if you uncheck conquest, you will NEVER get conquest, then pick no.

Just trying to keep people from being confused on their votes.

Random Wanderer said:

I have not seen any measurable proof that this actually gives us a more balanced match experience. I have encountered just as many stomps after this was implemented as I did before. However, I think most people are coming in here and voting yes simply because it says it will improve ELO, and not caring what it has to do to do so. It could be "would you give us all your money, sacrifice your firstborn child, and shove your genitals into a meat-grinder in order to improve ELO" and I believe a large number of people would say yes, because they don't pay any attention to anything other than the words "in order to improve ELO."

This is a very strange method to go about trying to improve ELO: a proper tier system based on player statistics would be far more effective. And this change causes a great many more problems than the one thing it is ostensibly trying to fix. A player in a Dire Wolf could, would, and has suddenly be forced to drop into Conquest, where they are completely useless. The rest of their team will abandon them, and the player will die when the other team comes upon them in a horde.

Along that line of thought, when players find themselves in a game mode that they cannot enjoy, the immediate (and in my opinion, proper) response is to simply not play it. Yet we are threatened with banning if we do so. You call it griefing. I'm sorry, but we are not just logging in and then leaving to try and earn XP or c-bills, nor are we doing it to just laugh at a team who is now short one player. We are legitimately trying to play something we can enjoy, yet you are forcing us to essentially torture ourselves. And if we try to leave so that we can try again to play the game we actually like, you threaten to kick us out forever. We are not griefing people.You, sirs, are griefing us!

annnd

Mystere, on 07 October 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Here is a subtle point that people seem to be missing.

If an overwhelming number of people are playing skirmish mode only -- which is what pro-skirmish players seem to be claiming -- then their wait times and/or match quality should not dramatically improve. It is the wait times and/or match quality of the non-skirmish players that should drastically improve.

So why did Skirmish players want this change again? I seriously doubt it's altruism.

Figured I'd bring two good posts to the party.

Edited by Whoops, 07 October 2014 - 08:31 PM.

[Gyrok]

Please remove this garbage from group queue. Leave it in the solo queue if they want it.

[1453 R]

Ooooooo...kay. Technical errors FTL. Good thing I copied my post before I (failed to) submit it in the other thread. Anyways.

AHEM:

I'm abstaining from the vote as I can't readily reconcile myself with either side in this race (I would actually like an option to select which reads "Neither option appeals", but understand why it's not there). I despise Skirmish mode, but I also wholeheartedly understand the problems facing Russ and Piranha with this issue.

I would like to ask that everyone else take the time to think about those problems. To really try and understand them, understand the driving forces behind this system, and why it went into the game. There's a lot of rage out there today, a lot of hiss and hullaballoo, and not very much in the way of problem-solving. This is inevitable given the nature of online gaming and the Internet, but I continue to hope that we can, even if only in occasional fits and starts, rise above it.

Also do remember that this forced gamemode selection, the soft-voting system, is a fantastic incentive to get Piranha to look at less popular gamemodes again. Russ has already agreed that it'd be a reasonable idea to take a second look at cap times in Conquest, and if the forums can all rise up as one and say "Here you go, Piranha. You got to do the soft-voting system you wanted to try and relieve stress on the matchmaker. NOW, since you've taken away our ability to play our favorites, it'd be really cool if you could work on ways to make the duds more palatable/fix common issues people have with Conquest and Skirmish", then we've got a much better chance of pushing those changes through. After all, Piranha can't just say "Well, switch Conquest/Skirmish off then, that'll fix your problems", now can they?

[Darth Futuza]

Monky, on 07 October 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

POLLPOCALYPSE 2014

Its like a US Election...so many recounts.

[Slyder]

This whould REALLY say...

Vote yes if you want to keep it the new way

Vote no if you prefered the old way (picking the maps you want to play)



This better end in a LANDSLIDE of NOs...being forced to play a map type we dont like isnt any good.

[Rebas Kradd]

"I'd like gamemode voting in group queues where it's actually making an ELO difference, but not in solo groups where it's making none" is a very valid and indeed crucial option, not a suboption to be addressed later.

Please reconsider your "no further edits" stance and implement that option.

[Kilo 40]

in before "if it's not a landslid in favor of keeping it the way it is, you have to go back to the old way!!!"

[Kiiyor]

I VOTE BETTER MATCHES.

I'll probably still curse if I get conquest.

[Random Wanderer]

PLEASE post a link to this poll on the front page of the website. Post a link to this poll on the launcher (you have links to webpages on the launcher all the time, so it must be possible). The point is that people need to know this is going on! Many many players missed the first poll because it was buried deep in the forums, in places where they don't look, because they expect important information to be posted on the launcher, or on the front page of the website. Right now, the way this poll is set up, the exact same thing is going to happen, unless you get notices out there to let people know it's happening.

(reposting from previous thread)

[MrThorn]

If you don't like the new system you have several ways of making that known, without breaking the rules.

1. Make your frustration known!
Create a post about it on the forums. Preferable in an already existing thread if there is one.

2. Stop buying!
If you are buying MC or mech packages or whatever, stop doing so. You can combine that with 1.

3. Stop playing!
If you can't get yourself to play in an unliked gamemode, no matter what, then stop playing MWO completly until this is changed. You can combine this with 1. and 2.

What is not an acceptable solution, is to try to force your will, by griefing other players.

**The above is a quote from a post in the Patch Feedback section of the forums**

**It gave me errors on quoting so this is all I could do**

I did not know there was an original vote to begin with. I heard it was only up for a couple of days and not well advertised. This new vote again seems to follow that as being not well advertised and seems to have been placed inside a forum section that folks may not go into very often. It would seem to me a post/vote such as this should have had a link on the launcher and/or the main page of the website. Since it has such a impact to the game-play.
As for the above quote I am planning on doing all three choices. I have voted No on this poll. I have played MWO since the first day of open beta. I have friends that was in closed beta and have also voted No. I have spent money on this game. I enjoy this game. To have a option of what game mode to play and then for it to not matter what I have selected to play seems very anti-player to me.

1. Why even have a choice to begin with?
2. Why even let me chose a mech, just pick it for me as-well then.
3. Why even pick what weapons I want on it, just pick that for me too.

This is my first forum post that is how much this choice in a feature has upset me. I hope PGI does the right thing and fixes this, or gives us a option to opt in/out of it, or some other choice that allows me to play the game-mode that I have selected to play. I hope PGI and the Community can come to a balance on this issue. Until then I am going to have to leave MWO since it is no longer the game that is what I have come to enjoy playing.

Thanks,
MrThorn

{Reposted from previous thread}

Edited by MrThorn, 07 October 2014 - 08:35 PM.

[CHH Badkarma]

I already get hit over the head with rules and nerfs. I dont want to lose what joy is left in the game by having minimal say in what game mode I play. If I wanted that I would scream for a "random battle" option.

[Zerberus]

Just out of curiosity, how hard would it be to implement a system where people can choose whether their selection is "preference" or "requirement"? While I fear it may be too convopluted both in implementation and in practice /use, so to speak having a way to prioritize selection /vote, or lockout undesired modes.

I personally like the vote option, because while i despise skirmish and it`s deathmatch sandbox, I fight the battles I`m presented with. But I can understand why people would want to say "no, no, no skirmish /assault /conquest for me, ever"....

[MajorFlack]

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.

[Random Wanderer]

I have not seen any measurable proof that this actually gives us a more balanced match experience. I have encountered just as many stomps after this was implemented as I did before. However, I think most people are coming in here and voting yes simply because it says it will improve ELO, and not caring what it has to do to do so. It could be "would you give us all your money, sacrifice your firstborn child, and shove your genitals into a meat-grinder in order to improve ELO" and I believe a large number of people would say yes, because they don't pay any attention to anything other than the words "in order to improve ELO."

This is a very strange method to go about trying to improve ELO: a proper tier system based on player statistics would be far more effective. And this change causes a great many more problems than the one thing it is ostensibly trying to fix. A player in a Dire Wolf could, would, and has suddenly be forced to drop into Conquest, where they are completely useless. The rest of their team will abandon them, and the player will die when the other team comes upon them in a horde.

Along that line of thought, when players find themselves in a game mode that they cannot enjoy, the immediate (and in my opinion, proper) response is to simply not play it. Yet we are threatened with banning if we do so. You call it griefing. I'm sorry, but we are not just logging in and then leaving to try and earn XP or c-bills, nor are we doing it to just laugh at a team who is now short one player. We are legitimately trying to play something we can enjoy, yet you are forcing us to essentially torture ourselves. And if we try to leave so that we can try again to play the game we actually like, you threaten to kick us out forever. We are not griefing people. You, sirs, are griefing us!

[Darth Futuza]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 07 October 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

... (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

IPBOARD can be the devil sometimes.