972 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

Niko, this is wonderful. You guys polling the community on a major feature and considering going back on your original decision based solely on community feedback. This makes me very happy, good on you guys.

On that note, I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on the matter at hand. I'll patch up and play for a couple days and make my vote count if I feel strongly about it once I've played with it. =]

[wicm]

No I run out If I get anything but skirmish. 2 out of 12 for the mode I chose....

[Vassago Rain]

All sides could easily be appeased if conquest earnings were increased a notch.

As of right now, you make more losing on assault than winning on conquest, while winning on skirmish brings in the most money. CQ is really good for grindind mech XP - but only on wins.

[POWR]

I don't actually care about gamemode in most cases since I can't pick the map in the solo queue. Some maps are best with conquest, some are better in assault, and sometimes you just want to skirmish. I have all 3 selected anyway, so I can get in to a match as fast as possible.

[SgtKinCaiD]

I'm really thorn on this one because :

• on one hand, i don't mind playing any of the game mode but i want to know BEFORE selecting my mech and actually Conquest is not as rewarding as Assault/Skirmish (I gain on average 15k less cbills on a conquest match).
  
• on the other hand, the MM is not getting better with this : yesterday, in both solo/group queue, i still got several stomp where i outdamaged (and with little doubt outscored) 4 or more of my teammates.

Edited by SgtKinCaiD, 07 October 2014 - 11:53 PM.

[Tarzilman]

Thinking of discussions in the past, it's really funny to see how the "loud minority" now is noticing that there actually is a "silent majority".

Edited by Tarzilman, 08 October 2014 - 12:14 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Vassago Rain, on 07 October 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:

All sides could easily be appeased if conquest earnings were increased a notch.

As of right now, you make more losing on assault than winning on conquest, while winning on skirmish brings in the most money. CQ is really good for grindind mech XP - but only on wins.

Some of us don't oppose this because of winnings. Some of us just want a certain playstyle and couldn't care less about winnings because they will come regardless as long as we are having fun.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 07 October 2014 - 11:58 PM.

[wicm]

2 out of 13 .....

[Wildflame]

TLDR: balance rewards across gametype; add interesting stuff to all gametypes to increase tactical options.

Make conquest more interesting (faster decapping than capping, faster capping in general, capping speed weighted by mech class, etc) and more rewarding (straight up more c-bills, I'd actually like to see a c-bill reward per second spent capping to equalise with the people fighting) and more "I like to stomp" players will play it.

Make skirmish more interesting (maybe have a couple repair bays around the map that can restore a % of outer armour, exhausted once used) and more "objectives-oriented" players will play it.

Fix assault's turrets (caustic valley's turrets still lock on and shoot from ~1km away, especially from the base by the foundry) and more rewarding to cap (to around the same c-bills-per-minute in game as just pretending it's skirmish and fighting to the death) and more skirmish-only players will play it.

A key element is to equalise the rewards for playing each gametype, and particularly for attempting to secure victory through either or any of the gametype's victory conditions, and to add extra elements to increase tactical options. The last part is quite a challenge, one which might be worth opening up to the community officially. I expect it's already been thoroughly discussed informally. The former, though - that should be easy in contrast. Mercenaries will be mercenaries, after all. If capping doesn't pay the bills, people won't cap.

EDIT: Alternatively, make opting out of game modes a premium time option. People can pay to get what they want, or they can tolerate what they get. =)

Edited by Wildflame, 07 October 2014 - 11:59 PM.

[Jhaele]

I was already voting on what game modes I wanted to play prior to this patch wasn't I? Now I get to vote again and possibly end up in game modes I do not want to play.

I would rather play matches in game modes I want that may have elo disparities then be forced to play in game modes that I despise. Game modes forced down my throat is a bigger problem then difficulties with elo.

[Morang]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 11:34 PM, said:

Also this poll isnt representitive due to the biased way the question is asked.

If you vote no youre voting against tighter matchmaking and elo lol

But it really is so in case of limited playerbase. With not enough players you can't have all the cookies and force matchmaker to consider all the criteria if you want a match to be put together in any sane time.

[Savage Wolf]

I also don't think that because of better ELO that you will see less stomps because the current gameplay really becomes a snowball, so losing the first two mechs often ends up losing you the match with little loses to the enemy. This will not change with this.

[Wildflame]

A further thought: maybe players should get increasing vote weight for their preferences each time they fail to get a match that meets their preferences.

So a player votes 'only skirmish':
Game 1: 1 vote for skirmish; it's assault.
Game 2: 2 votes for skirmish; it's conquest.
Game 3: 3 votes for skirmish; it's assault...
Game N: N votes for skirmish; it's skirmish.
Game N+1: 1 vote for skirmish again.

That way players are still statistically guaranteed to get the match they want at least once in a while, if only because people who prefer the less common modes (cough, conquest) will gradually build up overwhelming vote power.

[MischiefSC]

It's amazing anyone played the game before you could select game mode.

Clearly UI 2.0 was the BEST THING EVER DONE FOR MW:O.

At this point anyone who says 'the game was better in closed beta' needs to be voting for no gamemode selection - since that was all the same thing back then.

The idea that game mode selection negatively impacts matchmaking is so obvious it shouldn't need me to math it up.

500 or 600 people even is more than enough; it's well under a 5% margin of error for a binary topic (two options). The real issue is that the sample is purely self-selected. The again that means it's more likely, not less, to get people who actually care about the answer.

CW will have a variety of winning approaches and situations that you don't get to select - especially if defending.

If you absolutely can't handle not having total control of your game mode, please for the love of god never play in CW. You're going to be dead weight in an environment where winning counts.

[Chrithu]

Wildflame, on 08 October 2014 - 12:02 AM, said:

A further thought: maybe players should get increasing vote weight for their preferences each time they fail to get a match that meets their preferences.

So a player votes 'only skirmish':
Game 1: 1 vote for skirmish; it's assault.
Game 2: 2 votes for skirmish; it's conquest.
Game 3: 3 votes for skirmish; it's assault...
Game N: N votes for skirmish; it's skirmish.
Game N+1: 1 vote for skirmish again.

That way players are still statistically guaranteed to get the match they want at least once in a while, if only because people who prefer the less common modes (cough, conquest) will gradually build up overwhelming vote power.

I like the thinking behind that one. Hope they see it.

[Turist0AT]

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

Boom

this is how i got here. otherwise i wouldnt have known.

[Savage Wolf]

Wildflame, on 07 October 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

TLDR: balance rewards across gametype; add interesting stuff to all gametypes to increase tactical options.

Make conquest more interesting (faster decapping than capping, faster capping in general, capping speed weighted by mech class, etc) and more rewarding (straight up more c-bills, I'd actually like to see a c-bill reward per second spent capping to equalise with the people fighting) and more "I like to stomp" players will play it.

Make skirmish more interesting (maybe have a couple repair bays around the map that can restore a % of outer armour, exhausted once used) and more "objectives-oriented" players will play it.

Fix assault's turrets (caustic valley's turrets still lock on and shoot from ~1km away, especially from the base by the foundry) and more rewarding to cap (to around the same c-bills-per-minute in game as just pretending it's skirmish and fighting to the death) and more skirmish-only players will play it.

A key element is to equalise the rewards for playing each gametype, and particularly for attempting to secure victory through either or any of the gametype's victory conditions, and to add extra elements to increase tactical options. The last part is quite a challenge, one which might be worth opening up to the community officially. I expect it's already been thoroughly discussed informally. The former, though - that should be easy in contrast. Mercenaries will be mercenaries, after all. If capping doesn't pay the bills, people won't cap.

Soooooo much this. I would buy all the packages if only I could get less deathmatch and more objectives and rewards for actually doing the objectives!

[Xtrekker]

I would probably vote no, but I don't want PGI to think I'm perfectly happy with the old system. The whole thing needs some kind of redesign and this old random queue matchmaker needs to be filed away under "Ehhhh...nope".

[AeusDeif]

not sure I've posted at all since closed beta. that reflects the difference created by informing the community about the poll... didn't know about it before now.

I'd like to start by saying in spite of early mistakes and dissonance with the community, I'm glad to see PGI getting things into gear in a lot of ways. recent example: dismantling that obnoxious poptart sniper meta that drove me off for a few months.

I really can't believe people are blaming ELO for stomps. Stomps generally happen because of the circumstances created by lack of teamwork on one side. 12 low ELO players can defeat 12 high elo players if the high ELO players are simply less coordinated. This game is all about getting odds in your favor or against you via teamwork on one side or the other. Logistics > tactics as they say. I honestly don't think ELO is an accurate reflection of skill anyway.

So please guys, don't pretend a closer ELO is going to save you. It might help, but let defeats be a catalyst to learn something -- especially how to coordinate with internet strangers for a positive outcome. The ultimate goal of this... to reduce wipes caused by pug mentality, by taking more control away from players, is just backwards. enough said?

[Levon K]

Didn't realize so many people hated conquest mode. It's the superior mode (Skirmish + Objectives) and has more varied engagements (not always deathball).

I run conquest mode exclusively, and I actually agree with the voting system. How is it those who run other modes exclusively have a problem with it? You basically approach each match *the exact same way*. You're supposed to play conquest mode as a Skirmish anyways. Capping is just another variable that allows some alternatives to deathballing.