419 replies to this topic

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

I play a game to have fun. I don't have oodles of time every day to devote to games, let alone just ONE game. So if I just feel like playing a few games of skirmish, conquest, or assault... I think I should be entitled to be able to choose my game mode. If I'm feeling froggy, I'll select all three and let RNG decide my fate.

Besides, if "half" of the vocal community is supportive of all three game modes, then what's the big deal? Won't they just choose all three game modes?

[Oderint dum Metuant]

This is pretty crapastic but to be expected they always bow to the whining

[Hardin4188]

Abivard, on 08 October 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

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.

The idea was it was going to make everyone be in the same matchmaking pool because with a larger pool it would give you more balanced matches. But forcing people to play something they don't want is not the way to go about fixing matchmaking. If player pool is truly that small then time would be better spent with mass advertising campaigns and trying to repair the damage that things like Transverse did.

[Shredhead]

Abivard, on 08 October 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

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.

I voted yes because it obviously benefited a minority, small groups. You have to be a griefer to force them into playing stronger groups in more lop sided matches again.

[Mystere]

DoctorDetroit, on 08 October 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

There is an unhealthy amount of malignancy in this community!

Maybe Art and Democracy do not go together well.

Do you know of any valuable painting done by committee?

[Gauvan]

WM Jeri, on 08 October 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Well...lets look at this from a different perspective, the businessman in me says all players are not created equal, your statement implies they are. If I were at PGI and doing an analysis on how to weight player polls I would really have to consider what each player brings to the debate in terms of revenue per player.

[...snip...]

I was going to strait up like this post but I'm juuuust uncomfortable enough with the implications to reply in writing. I do think it would be smart for PGI to take this into account when weighing feedback. However, even though I am a paying customer I realize that a core benefit of F2P is that non-paying players are still contributing valuable content to the game in the form of their time.

But on the whole I agree that it would be an interesting thing for a company to consider, but only in the sense of "if paying customers want a feature, and non-paying customers don't care, let's think about it," and not in a paying trumps non-paying.

[Mazerius]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

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.

It shows that the bitching and trolling isnt limited to the (yes smaller) forum population but also in the general player base, And I singled out skirmish because it had/has the largest group of crybabies in both populations, forums by posts, games by allchat/team, plus the behavior. What this lets me see is that the proponents of that game mode only will do anything up to and including tks/FF/disco plus multiple posts on the forums raging about quitting, not paying etc. If that doesnt show you the character of some( not all ) of the players in that mindset I dont know what will, and I now choose not to drop with them.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mercules, on 08 October 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

Also, it was terroristic.

Im sorry but when ppl start throwing the word "terrorist" around when describing ppl in a game you start being laughable

it was used to describe Victor Morrison posting things the ppl of HPG Outreach didnt like on their Reddit for example

However, the ppl that did that were breaking the stated rules and deserve punishment for it

[Sorbic]

Mawai, on 08 October 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

"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.

From Russ "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."

His statement indicated that there might have been a minor change but the biggest thing that should be taken away was the fact that they were going by a TINY sample size of just a few hours. I would have rather seen a meaningful sample size so we could make an informed decision but it's too late now.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mazerius, on 08 October 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

It shows that the bitching and trolling isnt limited to the (yes smaller) forum population but also in the general player base, And I singled out skirmish because it had/has the largest group of crybabies in both populations, forums by posts, games by allchat/team, plus the behavior. What this lets me see is that the proponents of that game mode only will do anything up to and including tks/FF/disco plus multiple posts on the forums raging about quitting, not paying etc. If that doesnt show you the character of some( not all ) of the players in that mindset I dont know what will, and I now choose not to drop with them.

And I said you were generalizing, which you are. I was against the idea but I will not DC/alt-F4 etc in game because I only play with my unit and that would be extremely disrespectful to them to do.

So as I said; you need a broader brush

[jozkhan]

If PGI want to reach out to more of the non-forum player base then they should implement a pollng system in the game client itself. It's not rocket science and then at least it will be seen by everyone who actually plays the game.

That way we can have far more representative polling in the future.

[WM Jeri]

Gauvan, on 08 October 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

I was going to strait up like this post but I'm juuuust uncomfortable enough with the implications to reply in writing. I do think it would be smart for PGI to take this into account when weighing feedback. However, even though I am a paying customer I realize that a core benefit of F2P is that non-paying players are still contributing valuable content to the game in the form of their time.

But on the whole I agree that it would be an interesting thing for a company to consider, but only in the sense of "if paying customers want a feature, and non-paying customers don't care, let's think about it," and not in a paying trumps non-paying.

Yea no I get it...I do not even think they should share it just measure it. At the end of the day however they do have to keep paying customers happy or they do not exist so they have to weigh that impact. I am not saying give it total creedence but at least understand the dynamic. For me this is the fun stuff of business, interpreting data to make better and smarter informed decisions. Their real goal should always be to retain paying customers and make non-paying customer turn into paying customers.

If they do not measure this metric and consider it in their decision making they could turn what is perceived as a positive into a negative. Reality is it costs them money to make and maintain the game if they do not measure this metric they could easily shoot themselves in the foot. My rationale for this was really to have folks understand that at a business level not all players, (customers) are created equal.

Edited by WM Jeri, 08 October 2014 - 01:06 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

jozkhan, on 08 October 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

If PGI want to reach out to more of the non-forum player base then they should implement a pollng system in the game client itself. It's not rocket science and then at least it will be seen by everyone who actually plays the game.

That way we can have far more representative polling in the future.

Been saying that for the past day

But we have to wait till CW, Russ doesnt have anyone to do the code for it till then (as he said)

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 08 October 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[Abivard]

Shredhead, on 08 October 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

I voted yes because it obviously benefited a minority, small groups. You have to be a griefer to force them into playing stronger groups in more lop sided matches again.

Your post makes no sense.
Group size has not a thing to do with this, besides, groups are not allowed in solo queues.
How does voting yes help solo queues?
How does voting yes keep small groups from getting matched to larger groups in the group queue?

[RetroActive]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

Its nice how you seem to want the minority to rule the majority in this game.

I'm just left shaking my head at your posts.

[LORD ORION]

It is a good decision when many of those against the change are ready to walk away from the game.

The real petulant brats are the ones flooding the forums with "Let them go!" ,,,, you see that is actually how tyranny works in the real world.

[Shredhead]

Abivard, on 08 October 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Your post makes no sense.
Group size has not a thing to do with this, besides, groups are not allowed in solo queues.
How does voting yes help solo queues?

For the umpteenth time now in this thread, I agree to taking it out of the solo queue if it doesn't benefit it!

Quote

How does voting yes keep small groups from getting matched to larger groups in the group queue?

I don't know, because PGI was bullied into taking it out before we could get decent data!

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Shredhead, on 08 October 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

PGI was bullied

So when they dont listen to ppl they get ****, when they DO they get bullied.

[Foxfire]

Destructicus, on 08 October 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

If it takes 50% to stop progress but it takes 70% to make it happen then nothing is ever going to change.

The problem is that ignoring a significant minority, which is what you want, can have a big adverse impact on the active population when you are looking at something this important. I don't doubt that there would be people who would quit over this.

Hopefully PGI will find another way to implement what they want to achieve with this change.

[nehebkau]

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?

Because the game became Skirmish warrior online?