419 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

AlexEss, on 08 October 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

I guess i will just link that the next time ANYONE complains about uneven teams or long ques.... Heck might as well make a pretty little copy/paste for it.

A day people... You did not even give it a proper day... *sucks onteeth and waves cane around* backin my days we had some stamina.. We endured bugs for weeks and weird features for months.. or forever...

Like ECM XD

Three months of "working as intended".

Dunno; I gotta think this way is better than NOT saying anything and hating the change

[TygerLily]

Fut, on 08 October 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Don't really understand what's going on.
Wasn't there a poll with 50%+ in favor of the new voting system? Why would they change it?

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.

Edited by TygerLily, 18 November 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Hardin4188]

Good this is the way it needs to be. There are better ways of creating a balanced match making system. That original poll has such a small sample size it should have never been valid.

[Voivode]

Helsbane, on 08 October 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

Personally I'm glad to see it go back to locked selections instead of a mere vote. Now, if they'd alter Conquest to be more dynamic and provide rewards for things like BASE CAPPING, not to mention move the Alpine nodes back to their original locations, I'd play it again. Until then, no thank you, I'll pass on the multi-node deathball game.

I love conquest for the fact that the cap points count JUST enough to force people to move. Skirmish is too immobile for me to enjoy. What skirmish needs is orbiting assault ships for each team. If the enemy team stand still too long, your team's orbiting ship blasts them. If your team stands still too long, the enemy's orbiting ship blasts you. THAT would make Skirmish worth playing!

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Hardin4188, on 08 October 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Good this is the way it needs to be. There are better ways of creating a balanced match making system. That original poll has such a small sample size it should have never been valid.

IMO taking the time to put in an in game polling system would be time well spent

Voivode, on 08 October 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

I love conquest for the fact that the cap points count JUST enough to force people to move. Skirmish is too immobile for me to enjoy. What skirmish needs is orbiting assault ships for each team. If the enemy team stand still too long, your team's orbiting ship blasts them. If your team stands still too long, the enemy's orbiting ship blasts you. THAT would make Skirmish worth playing!

Isnt that what arty is for?

[Destructicus]

I was hoping the community was better than this.

This sets a bad precedent, shows that if people ***** hard enough they can get their way.
People only want a voting system if it comes out in their favor, when it doesn't work the way they want it to they do this.

Edited by Destructicus, 08 October 2014 - 11:31 AM.

[AlexEss]

Tyger nailed it.

[Jon Gotham]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

I see it as listening to the people.
YMMV

Except those same people will be raging and crying about getting stomped.......today probably.
What's next on the rage-o-matic I want my way list I wonder?

cSand, on 08 October 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Well, when people are purposely suiciding, disconnecting, and TKing on match types they don't want, the alternative was to ban ALL of those people... or change it back.

I hate the fact that to those people, those tactics are now validated as they got what they wanted.

The decision makes no difference to me (mostly a pugger )... but still. I can't help but think, you know, PGI has been making a pretty big effort recently to communicate and ask for input, and then they do that, the playerbase responds, changes are carried through, and the players turn on them. They can't win, it must be frustrating.

Aye, must be disheartening to see what your community is made up of.

[Mercules]

What is the point in holding a poll if people won't vote but instead after forfeiting the right to influence the outcome can whine and have things changed?


Yeah, PGI probably had to do this, but where were all these people who didn't want the change during the original poll?

[Kain Demos]

I always wanted teh shortest wait times possible so I always left all 3 modes open.

It is tempting to select only conquest since my win ratio is so much better there (or just assault and conquest leaving out skirmish and my terrible .97 W/L ratio in it) but I never did because I don't feel like going 30 seconds or more between pops.

[Russ Bullock]

Fut, on 08 October 2014 - 11:18 AM, said:

Listening to the people, but ignoring the 1433 people who voted in favour of the change. All this does is reinforce the idea that if you complain hard enough, you'll get your way.

I can keep features in place even if the player base is split 50/50 on a subject if I feel it is for the betterment of the game. But if that feature was something players have had the use of for the past ~1 year I need a high majority buy in.

I thought we had that with the original 80/20 poll but many felt it wasn't worded precisely enough. Now that everyone understood exactly what the trade off was a 53% majority which really had no chance of getting any higher than 60% just wasn't going to be enough.

[Soul Tribunal]

Alright so, let me get this straight then....I just need to get a Minority of people to DEMAND they release my Bushwacker in the next patch....regardless of Canon/Timeline or anything else, and I can make it happen?
Wow..why didn't I think of that before hand.

-ST

[Hardin4188]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

IMO taking the time to put in an in game polling system would be time well spent

No that probably wouldn't be a good idea. Instead they could have made several announcements that they were thinking about doing this. Maybe they could have kept the poll open longer or maybe they could have mass emailed. There are several things they could have done. It's also a possibility that many people don't think a decision this big would depend on the result from a small forum poll.

[RG Notch]

Destructicus, on 08 October 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

I was hoping the community was better than this.

This sets a bad precedent, shows that if people ***** hard enough they can get their way.
People only want a voting system if it comes out in their favor, when it doesn't work the way they want it to they do this.

So you're saying people shouldn't have voted how they felt? PGI sanctioned the poll no?

[Voivode]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

IMO taking the time to put in an in game polling system would be time well spent



Isnt that what arty is for?

Arty is one shot from my mech. I'm talking a punishment that keeps coming until you waddle out of the way.

[Rizzelbizzeg]

Bummer about the revert, my least favorite game mode is *searching...searching...searching...*

[Hardin4188]

Mercules, on 08 October 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

What is the point in holding a poll if people won't vote but instead after forfeiting the right to influence the outcome can whine and have things changed?


Yeah, PGI probably had to do this, but where were all these people who didn't want the change during the original poll?

A lot of us didn't know about it. Where do we go to find these polls? Does it show up on the main page? Do we have to read their tweets? There is only so much you can do in a day.

[Jeb]

Viktor Drake, on 08 October 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

I have to give PGI a big resounding round of applause on this one. It was the correct decision in this case and for the best of the game.

Also you have to keep in mind that those who wanted to vote didn't really lose anything. Sure some matches might have had a bit tighter ELO match ups but ELO was never going to prevent stomps because as soon as one team loses even one mech, they are at a massive disadvantage. The reality is I doubt there was much noticeable difference for most players.

On the other hand, those who hate playing something like Conquest, lost a hell of alot with the change. For them it wasn't just some minor difference in their game play experience, rather it totally changed it.

So yeah good for PGI making the correct decision in this case and lets face it, they did actually listen to the community. 49% of your players not liking something unfortunately it way to large a margin for them to allow to exist. Doing so would absolutely not be best for the game.

Quoted as this is so right... the forums users tend to reflect more hardcore and long term fans... the fact that the vote was so close indicates even those groups do not agree this is the best move for the game...

At this point the devs need to look into a different solution as they don't want to force people into playing modes they don't like... that will end up with people leaving the game, or dropping from that game mode at the least...

[AlexEss]

Well i guess i do agree in way with Russ. It was way to close andi am not holding this against PGI. It was worth a shot.


But as i said...The next person who complains abut long wait times or uneven matches... You had your chance here.

[Destructicus]

Russ Bullock, on 08 October 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

I can keep features in place even if the player base is split 50/50 on a subject if I feel it is for the betterment of the game. But if that feature was something players have had the use of for the past ~1 year I need a high majority buy in.

I thought we had that with the original 80/20 poll but many felt it wasn't worded precisely enough. Now that everyone understood exactly what the trade off was a 53% majority which really had no chance of getting any higher than 60% just wasn't going to be enough.

I just feel it's disgusting that the people who didn't like the way the vote turned out are able to reverse the decision just because they cried loudest.

Totally defeats the purpose of a voting system.