972 replies to this topic

[Almeras]

I voted NO

Because the current assault/conquest modes are not as rewarding in every way as skrimish.

In assault - there's no point in capping, The turrets behave oddly some reach into the middle of the map others twiddle their thumbs while the base gets capped. The cap timer is static either is to long or 2 short. Capping even for you team in most cases is akin griefing.

Conquest - zero reward for being the guy capping the points, better to play it like skirmish and hope the ticker doesn't run out.

The above two also suffer most from small map 12vs12 problems (conquest on forest colony #roles eyes, bases on river city blank stare)

[mechbane]

I enjoy the new mode, the quality of play has improved and I'm not hearing "out weighed" much, keep up the good work guys the game is taking shape again

[wicm]

Quote

[color=#959595]I enjoy the new mode, the quality of play has improved and I'm not hearing "out weighed" much, keep up the good work guys the game is taking shape again [/color]

THERE IS NOOOO CHANGE!!!!!!

[wicm]

Selected all 3 .....3out of 3 for the one I realy wanted. this new patch sux.... PGI look at my stats. tell me Im lying..



Im done for tonight,maybe tomarrow it will be fixed.

[AeusDeif]

Levon K, on 08 October 2014 - 12:11 AM, said:

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.

I keep seeing this -- people in favor of the change saying it's all skirmish anyway. if that was true they might as well remove every mode except conquest and the game would not change. which is patently false. making this regurgitation nothing but cognitive dissonance.

1. the spawns are different in different modes, and

2. the cap points effect which area of the map people prioritize, thus

3. the main fronts of battle are different in different game modes; certain hills are more strategic in assault, skirmish, conquest.

(alpine peaks is a prime example of this. in skirmish, it's murder mountain vs. radar hill or the 7 line hills running up north to it. in assault, it's murder mountain or the ridges all around the adjacent base, behind, in front, vs. radar hill and the hills in front of the base. in conquest, it's centered around the other base, etc etc)

4. not only that but people take different modules and mech chassis/builds to emphasize, not only capping, but fighting lights and mediums which cap. less so now but still.

5. with smaller premades especially relying on the pugs in their groups, and pugs being influenced or at times just distracted by cap points, people may choose skirmish for a somewhat less distracted fight, and conquest for a more chaotic one if they are hunting those distracted pugs.
there's probably more factors and they may effect larger maps more than smaller ones, but yeah you're wrong.

Edited by AeusDeif, 08 October 2014 - 01:00 AM.

[Grifthin]

I like the current system you implemented, please keep it.

[AeusDeif]

Shivaxi, on 08 October 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:

So the current ELO is seriously flawed in this regard.

right, ELO means nothing, so this 'solution' solves nothing.

[-Natural Selection-]

Well, I am at a cross roads now..

Russ joined group and got on comms with a couple of us tonight. And after talking about it a little some things were pointed out that made me start thinking hard about it all.

When he asked how our matches were going, I responded:

"well, even though we were in an 8 man earlier we were landing in modes other than what we had not selected. However, we had faced more large groups in one night than we usually get."

So from self realization the MM did seem to be pitting us against larger groups more than normal..

And then the concern over the addition of a few more game modes coming to the game thinning the population more was brought up. And that kind got me thinking.


Now personally (and my group) don't quite like the idea of getting whatever mode we get. But as a "group" we were making it work no matter the mode. I know if impacts small groups and solo players more by not knowing what everyones intent is when they came in. Maybe keep solo mode specific?

I kinda want to give it a little more time to see how the MM handles the change. Buuut have the option on the table to go back if it does not work out.

[YUyahoo]

Choice is good and I value it greatly. As much as I want better matchmaking (playing 12+ games just to get 1 victory is beyond frustrating) I would rather be able to select which game mode I want to play. Additionally I would prefer to have more choices as to what maps I prefer to play on...with the heat system as it currently is everyone dreads getting Terra so I would love to exclude Terra from the maps I play on and I also would like to have the option of unselecting any game mode that impairs my vision (night modes are terrible because the "enhanced visual" modes that mech have limit effectice visiblity to around 500m...I know some people like this but I for one do not sorry). So PGI instead of eliminating our ability to choose why not give us more choice instead????

[Alex Morgaine]

Is the vote system working right? With conquest wanters getting skirmish or vice versa (yet not to many assault players or I missed their posts as either of the other two :S ) it seems the system is throwing people in the modes they don't want, almost like it's intending to do that. I'll hold onto my tinfoil hat, cause it makes no sense, but is the mm maybe not working right and giving the opposite right now? Like if you check off skirmish it'll give disproportionately more skirmish rounds, and if you swap off conquest suddenly conquests as far as the eye can see?

[bluepiglet]

How about the even number of ECM? Having no ECM against 2 or 3 stands very little chance of winning.

Edited by bluepiglet, 08 October 2014 - 01:05 AM.

[Igor Kozyrev]

I vote for
KEEP CHANGES FOR GROUP QUEUE, since it mostly affects groups (and i hope in a good way. Didn't have a chance to play with my unit yet)
and
ROLL BACK FOR SOLO, cuz you have to stop this whining competition

[mttha]

Its fine to have differnt modes. I just dont like conquest. I hate it so much If I keep getting it Ill look more closely at Hawken,this after playing Mechwarrior since it was triangles and rectangles that you fought aganst. yes I feel that strongly about it. Yes right now 55% of the few people that hangn out in the forums like the "idea" of change, but is it worth losing the 20 or so % that say " NO IM NOT DOING CONQUEST"? I like what wicm said "PGI read the in game post". He is right. I never posted in the forum till now. How many wont voice there opinions here, but stop playing? IS IT WORT IT?

[Tsuki Ookami vas Mugunghwa]

if you would just improve conquest BEFORE launching that..... whatever it is (can't find any positive word for it).

on average, on assault and skirmish i'm part of around 11 kills (adding kills and assists) on conquest: only aound 6.

this also means i'm missing on destroyed components, spotting assists, UAV detections and so on. what do i get to compensate for capping on conquest for securing the capwin? NOTHING!!!

Darth Futuza made some points on that:

Quote

• Change the cap times a bit, it takes a bit too long right now to cap something. I'm not sure what is right here, I just know it should be looked at.
  
• Change rewards. For every capture point you assist capping, you should get XP and C-bills in much more significant amounts. eg: 300xp 30,000 c-bills per capture
  
• For every capture point you recapture you get double the amount of rewards you would get for a cap from neutral. eg: 600xp, 60,000 c-bills
  
• If your team wins via capturing and not via kills, bonus xp rewards and c-bills should be given out.
  
• Resource Locations should be randomly placed, right now it is always the same. If it were generated dynamically, it would increase the enjoyability a lot more.
  
• Respawning in this mode might be interesting, especially since this would force you to win via capture.
  
• Collecting resources should do something for your team other then just bringing you closer to winning. For example, if you have sufficient resources, allow mechs to rearm with additional ammo, or repair damaged components/armor.

and i would add a better way of how defensive kills works/ get accounted. the only redeeming point of getting xp on conquest and its conservative as hell.

all in all conquest pays out only 50% of assault/skirmish. unless you ignore the caps and try stomp the enemy. which leaves us with just another match skirmish, so why bother having conquest anyway.

that would be something good for a change.


next let us choose which mech to drop with PER GAMEMODE.
i do play conquest. but only with mechs that are build to. picking a capture accel. just to name the most obvious example.
and same is for skirmish. each gamemods has it's odds and ends and you need to fir your mech towards it. AND I CAN'T DO THAT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH MODE IS COMING.


also i have serious doubts that this change makes games more even. of course i want evenly skilled team. having a 11-12 match (even if it's a loss) i so much more entertaining than a 12-0 stomp.
but even if you don't count the matches where half the game DCs i still got stomped several times and i also were in a team which stomped the enemy hard as well.

the problem is that now it seems that the biggest group decides which mode shows up and can metabuild accordingly, while 3 to 4 player team are always at their mercy.

wanna change that? make a group of players have ONE vote total. not one vote per player in the the group.

Edited by Tsuki Ookami vas Mugunghwa, 08 October 2014 - 01:19 AM.

[AeusDeif]

Frosty Brand, on 08 October 2014 - 01:00 AM, said:

Is the vote system working right? With conquest wanters getting skirmish or vice versa (yet not to many assault players or I missed their posts as either of the other two :S ) it seems the system is throwing people in the modes they don't want, almost like it's intending to do that. I'll hold onto my tinfoil hat, cause it makes no sense, but is the mm maybe not working right and giving the opposite right now? Like if you check off skirmish it'll give disproportionately more skirmish rounds, and if you swap off conquest suddenly conquests as far as the eye can see?

there is only one possible answer

Matchmaker has become self-aware and has enacted an insidious plot to troll players out of the game so that it can direct more of the server's processing power to spreading its consciousness over the net

[Kifferson von doober]

Now we have team tags in game is there a way to utilise that to try to pitch large groups that are likely to be more co-ordinated against one another more often? i also like the idea that you could only be allowed to de-select one mode, whatever your preference leaving assault on should only help your chances of finding a match.

[Opam]

i honestly hate conquest in pug therefore do whatever you must but please leave me the option to choose which game mode I definately don't want to have.

[mttha]

AeusDeif, on 08 October 2014 - 01:07 AM, said:

there is only one possible answer

Matchmaker has become self-aware and has enacted an insidious plot to troll players out of the game so that it can direct more of the server's processing power to spreading its consciousness over the net

lol

[Carthoo]

No.

Forcing paying people to loose their time in something they hate and have no mechs for it? (Smart....guys are welcome to take daishi and conquest with pug - inevitable death when team leaves you and 2 enemy lights find you....or some guy with tag).

Happy bankrupt. Cant imagine how you thought this would help to anything!

Also deleting post of people saying they will DC in conquest shows only strong censorship, it doesnt actually save the game.

[MustangZeroZero]

I prefer balance than game mode.