419 replies to this topic

[Mawai]

TygerLily, on 08 October 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Sept 21st the Community votes 78% yes for "Would you give up the ability to guarantee the game mode you play for an increased chance of a more competitive match?"

October 7th we give up the ability to guarantee the game mode you play for an increased chance of a more competitive match.

October 7th...

October 7th the Community votes 51% yes for, 49% against "Would you like to keep the game mode voting system as currently implemented?"

October 8th...feature removed.

October 8th...400 more threads created complaining about MM meanwhile there are hard barricades between certain players due to game mode exclusion thus making the matchmaker less effective.

"Would you give up the ability to guarantee the game mode you play for an increased chance of a more competitive match?"

http://mwomercs.com/...me-mode-voting/

So maybe this should be rephrased ...

"Would you give up the ability to guarantee the game mode you play in the SOLO queue IF IT DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?"

"Would you give up the ability to guarantee the game mode you play in the GROUP queue if it resulted in better Elo balancing and the possibility of better matching for large groups?"

It is pretty clear that the change affects the two queues quite differently and did NOTHING in the solo queue. As a result, backing out the change and reassessing the situation is the right move to make no matter what the reaction on the forums might be ... hopefully if it does improve group queue matches there might be some way to incorporate some version in the group queue only.

[RetroActive]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

No; they said they wanted a clear winner. There wasnt one.

I don't think you really pay attention to the context of what people post.

[Mercules]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

lol

Apparently you've never had your taxes raised because the city passed an ordinance to improve your street. They open the floor for discussion and even votes and if the people from that area don't show up and voice an opinion well... the motion goes through.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mercules, on 08 October 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

Terroristic threats

Whats that term...

http://dictionary.re...rowse/hyperbole

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Wouldn't that speak to a need to adjust the mechanic in the solo queue instead of removing it all together. There was an apparent improvement in the group queue.

Better question, was that because ppl just didnt play?

RetroActive, on 08 October 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

In what bizzaro world do you live that 48% the MAJORITY?!?

how do you exist in a text based communication forum and not be able to read?

The forums are the minority even russ said as much

[Shredhead]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 October 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

I agree. I don't like it when it's put that way.

HOWEVER...there was a respectable sentiment behind it, one that was posited by a number of people who DIDN'T behave in a childish manner. The sentiment was that you don't step on gamer choice unless you've got a darn good reason. No ELO improvement in the solo queue doesn't quality as a darn good reason.

Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't have minded them taking it out of solo queue again, as it obviously didn't benefit it. I still stand by my opinion that people could have at least give it a shot for a week, and let PGI sort it out then.

[Mazerius]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Because youre generalizing how ppl act in game by their forum presence...

If you cant understand how thats bad, I cant help you XD

So I guess the rampant tks and disconnects of yesturday and somewhat this morning arent indicative of anything either right?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mercules, on 08 October 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

Apparently you've never had your taxes raised because the city passed an ordinance to improve your street. They open the floor for discussion and even votes and if the people from that area don't show up and voice an opinion well... the motion goes through.

GAME =/= REAL LIFE

I know thats hard

[Isabelle]

While I am slightly saddened that the poll didn't go the way I had hoped. I liked the new system because it would allow PGI to add more (and hopefully more varied) game modes, without splitting the player base into an increasing number of game mode ques.

What I'm most upset by is the childish behavior of people who couldn't deal with the new method for a single day without ruining matches for other players by disconnecting, suiciding, and in some cases even team killing at the start of the match because they ended up on a game mode they didn't prefer (even though most non-skirmish matches end up with one team completely destroyed anyways).

Even though I think PGI is right to revert the change (since they wanted a clear majority supporting it to keep it), it does bother me slightly that people who act like that are getting what they want...

[Bilbo]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

...
Better question, was that because ppl just didnt play?
...

I don't know how anyone could know since the change has only been in game for a day.

[WM Jeri]

Mercules, on 08 October 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

I voted "Yes" I am willing to bet I have spent as much if not more than many who voted "No".

Did not say you did not, I only know what I spent and thats in the range of about a grand...my point to you is a simple question. Using this metric are all players created equal, your comment indicated they are, neither of us know in terms of the players who voted against this metric, this was not personal to you this was about explaining a rational for better interpreting poll results and PGI understanding how their decisions could effect revenue stream.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mazerius, on 08 October 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

So I guess the rampant tks and disconnects of yesturday and somewhat this morning arent indicative of anything either right?

Yes, those ppl should be banned/suspended and then you wouldnt have to play against them either would you?

I dont get how using them as an example proves anything about your claim. Not banning/punishing them just lets that behavior become a valid form of protest because you cant then ban the next group for doing the same thing.

[Lyoto Machida]

I love how some people in this thread aren't getting the fact that since it was such a huge change to how matchmaking was done for the longest time, a 51/49 vote in favor of wasn't going to cut it.

Carry on, though...

[SweetJackal]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

man he's been talking to us in that thread but still brings it to Twitter first lol



Because the "no" side is less than 3% less than the yes.

Theres a LOT of unhappy ppl. Saying +50% doesnt tell you the whole story; here Ill help:

• Yes - I want the improvement in team ELO differences. (1433 votes [51.70%])
  
• No - I would rather be assured of the game modes I am playing. (1339 votes [48.30%])

Though I originally voted for the voting system I am also a player that doesn't mind any game mode. So if you took exclusively the people that had a strong opinion against a certain game mode then they would be largely represented by the No crowd. Also, this didn't seem to change much for solo queue match quality, by most accounts as it really only improved team matching yet still pushed solo players into game modes they didn't desire.

This isn't to say that the system was bad and PGI should feel bad, it's actually the opposite. The data and reaction from the players about this system provides incredible insight. The system will need to be tweaked and fixed before it can be put into place again to ensure more player control and agency (heavier weight to what the players want to play so that they only get a 'hated' game mode as a last resort) in addition the game modes should be reexamined to see what can be done to make them more enjoyable to see about reducing player opposition to playing them.

I would start a feedback thread but my threads just tend to die in the aether and float off screen.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

I don't know how anyone could know since the change has only been in game for a day.

Theres NO WAY to look at the population the day before and the day before that (being that Russ has stated that the population is constant) and see how many ppl were playing until the change was reverted?

I seriously doubt that

[Mystere]

vortmax, on 08 October 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Just tossing this out: Here's how I would suggest implementing the system (if it's possible):

1) Player (or group) selects Assault & Skirmish game modes.
2) Player (or group) launches.
3) After a short search MM finds a slot in a Conquest game.
4) Game pops up a dialog to the Player (or Group Leader) saying "Would you like to launch in Conquest with more evenly matched teams?" with "Yes" and "No" buttons, "No" being default.
- NOTE:) MM continues searching for Assault & Skirmish matches for Player (or Group) as a fallback for either "Yes" or "No" selection.
5) If Player clicks "yes", team is dropped into the Conquest game.
6) If Player does nothing or clicks "No." the Player (or group) is launched into the first available Assault or Skirmish game found.

I can see how that can be very problematic on the MM programming side, as one game could be held up by inaction on the player dialog.

Why are you treating Conquest as a special case instead of treating all game modes equally? You are making your implementation more complicated than it needs to be.

Edited by Mystere, 08 October 2014 - 01:37 PM.

[Abivard]

Only griefers and the ignorant want to have the game force others to play modes that they do not want to.

The old way never forced anything on anyone.
If you wanted to play a specific mode you were able to do so.
If you did not care what mode you played you could check all three and let the game decide.

So.... why are there people who actually openly post in favor of a game wide griefing system?
It is those people who should be banned.

Besides, who on that side is going quit the game over this? no one except a total Richard that's who.

Think about it, The people who let the game choose their mode get their way in either option. it is a win-win for them what ever way it goes, unless they enjoy griefing other players by knowing they force people into modes those people don't like.

It is only those who do not want to be forced that stand to lose by the new system.

[EvilCow]

Isabelle, on 08 October 2014 - 12:44 PM, said:

While I am slightly saddened that the poll didn't go the way I had hoped. I liked the new system because it would allow PGI to add more (and hopefully more varied) game modes, without splitting the player base into an increasing number of game mode ques.

Good point, this could be addressed by letting people disable only two game modes maximum. So you would have to leave enables 1 out of 3 (current situation), 2 out of 4, 3 out 5 etc

[Mercules]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

GAME =/= REAL LIFE

I know thats hard

Both used the same system. "Hey, we had a discussion before we did it. If you had an opinion there was a time set up to give it."

Also, it was terroristic. They were actively causing a disruption in game play.

[Livewyr]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

The forums are the minority even russ said as much

Logically, yes, I would say the forums as a whole are a minority (just as about every other institution of its like)

But what I do not get: How, without any player communication, does anyone (including PGI) know what most of the player base wants?

A: The player base agrees with the Majority of Forum goers.
B: The player base disagrees with the Majority of Forum goers.
C: The player base is well represented by the Forum Goers.
D: The player base is nothing like the Forum Goers.

Which is it, and how do we know?


(On a personal level, it is akin to a losing political candidate claiming he won by the majority that did not show up to vote.
If you do not say anything, how the hell are people supposed to know what you want? One cannot fix a problem for you, that they do not know you have.)

[Mawai]

Shredhead, on 08 October 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Hey, I'm not even that opposed to reverting it, just pissed about the way the whole thing went down. Russ stated the poll would stay up a whole week. People started blackmailing, team killing and disconnecting, and after not even 24 hours the thing gets reversed.
That's rewarding the stunts these people pulled off, and I find it disgusting.

I didn't see much of those actions ... just folks who were upset and threatened to do so. I think any folks who did take those actions are in the wrong but honestly, I don't think that was the reason for PGI quickly reversing themselves.

Their own numbers show that there is no reason to keep this feature in the solo queue ... it has no effect on matchmaking and limits player choice in such a way as to force a certain fraction of people to play game modes they hate or consider broken.

People who already play all game modes in the solo queue are unaffected either way ... they get pretty much the same result in either system. Given the numbers and the fact that there is even one customer upset (and there is far more than one person) there is no reason to leave the feature on for the solo queue for any longer than necessary to patch in a change.

What PGI should have done was to look at the mode choice numbers by active players in the past month.

Tabulate the fraction of players choosing each mode and each combination in the solo and group queues.

All
Conquest+Assault
Assault+Skirmish
Skirmish+Conquest
Conquest
Assault
Skirmish

That hard data on the game mode choices made by active players would be FAR more accurate than any poll which reaches a small fraction of players. Anyone who plays only specific instead of ALL has a REASON for leaving out one or more modes and the change to voted game mode would significantly impact their play style. This would at least give some hard data with which to work with the community on a solution ... it might also have given them an idea of what fraction of the player base would be affected by this change and what sort of reaction they could expect.