419 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

Doing such things for a day would probably not warrant serious and long term repercussions.

If they dont, ppl will do it every time they have an issue.

They have to make an example or they can expect it to happen over and over

[VanillaG]

Gyrok, on 08 October 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Here is a little tidbit.

The people voting no were mostly the group queue.

Here is another tidbit, the people complaining about the MM which spawned this idea were also from the group queue.

As it stand rights now, the group queue does not have the population to support hard choices AND create matches with lower ELO differences. When groups of 5 or more was added to the group queue all groups were forced to adhere to 3/3/3/3. If groups want better matches, with XP and C-Bills, they have to give up some of the control over game mode. If they want more control, and no payouts, they can have private matches and custom private matches.

[Bmetranger]

If you want to improve team play against 8-12 man teams then they need a in game Voice System for better coordination. In game chat just does not cut it. BUt as long as you have 3-4 teams Fighting one coordinated team you will probably still see stomps. It was the right decision to remove the voting system PGI couldn't afford to lose half the game population.

[Foxfire]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 October 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:

You seem to assume that they haven't been doing that. They have. They flood people's PT accounts with 500,000,000 Cbills and like 50,000 GXP to let them buy want they want. I can think of at least two occasions they've done that.

It hasn't been enough.

That isn't an incentive, that is just providing tools needed to test. What I am talking about is doing set time tests with a finite length and then, like with the challenges, offer a small reward such as a vanity item, small amount of premium time, or a Mechbay for participation over a defined amount of the test. Give something tangible and remember that this is for significant changes/updates.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

RG Notch, on 08 October 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Where has our community manager been throughout this whole affair? You would think he would be front and center explaining PGI's side and handling this voting and such. HMMM...

ya, managing the community as it were

[Bilbo]

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

If 100 players did it during a 24-hour period, should PGI really ban them? What about 1,000? 10,000? What should the upper limit be?

I doubt initial offenses are considered for ban until after a warning is issued. If done enough a pattern of behavior could easily be established though.

[Dock Steward]

I think people just want to like what they're playing. If I logged in to MWO one day, and found it had turned into Duck Hunt, I'd be pissed.

Clearly I'm overstating for effect, but some people hate certain game modes so much that it feels like a different game to them. They don't want to play it. That's it.

Imagine someone logging in after the patch, not knowing about the change (the patch notes link was still connecting to the Sept 23rd patch). They launch and they suddenly find themselves in a game mode they hate and had de-selected. Not only would they be confused as heck, but they'd probably DC and go looking for an answer. When they finally found the reason why, they'd discover it had to do with a poll they knew nothing about. Now they'd be pissed.

I don't agree with the opinions of this hypothetical player, but I understand them.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 October 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

When it comes to matchmaking changes, there just aren't enough players even amongst the willing test population.

So you agree where I said there arent enough players in this game for a test server

But everything is ok and the game is thriving.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

If 100 players did it during a 24-hour period, should PGI really ban them? What about 1,000? 10,000? What should the upper limit be?

I would hope there weren't even 100 people who performed such inappropriate actions. We play the game knowing behaviours will be punished. What about those individuals that drop in assaults and drop out because they're on Alpine or an uber hot map. Their behaviour should be tolerated as well when they're consistently making the game rougher for others who are playing through such conditions?

Upper limit, lower limit... the point is if people performed actions that against the COC in really poor gamesmanship then some time where they're not playing is deserved. But that decision doesn't rest with me though if I were to play with an individual with such a low moral base they can give a flying monkey about another that they're playing alongside ... I wouldn't want to play with that individual (in or out of game).

[Ashnod]

Ok, can we hotfix it back in now for faster more elo balanced matches like it was originally implemented for? thanks.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Rebas Kradd, on 08 October 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:

You seem to assume that they haven't been doing that. They have. They flood people's PT accounts with 500,000,000 Cbills and like 50,000 GXP to let them buy want they want. I can think of at least two occasions they've done that.

It hasn't been enough.

Dont give the test account the incentive, give the real account the incentive -.-

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

If 100 players did it during a 24-hour period, should PGI really ban them? What about 1,000? 10,000? What should the upper limit be?

IMO?

ANY

If youre breaking the rules you should be punished for it as a lesson for future people not to do it.

[Mystere]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

If they dont, ppl will do it every time they have an issue.

They have to make an example or they can expect it to happen over and over

If 100 players did it during a 24-hour period, should PGI really ban them? What about 1,000? 10,000? What should the upper limit be?


Besides, this was obviously a very contentious issue. You do not want to fan more flames soon after you just nipped a general insurrection in the bud. There is a very good reason why Russ made his executive decision as quickly as he did. I actually expected it.

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

I doubt initial offenses are considered for ban until after a warning is issued. If done enough a pattern of behavior could easily be established though.

My point exactly.

[Rebas Kradd]

It's not about L2P; it's more along the lines of loading up MechWarrior Online and then suddenly being dropped into a Candy Crush client.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 October 2014 - 02:24 PM.

[Akita Rob]

The really was no need to even have a poll, no point at all if they were going to roll it back with the minority vote.

I am curious what percentage was needed to keep it 60/40 or 70/30 maybe 80/20, maybe the Devs should tell us in advance what percentage they need to pass something, this is very sad. No more polls for me.

[Mystere]

Daisu Saikoro, on 08 October 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

I would hope there weren't even 100 people who performed such inappropriate actions. We play the game knowing behaviours will be punished. What about those individuals that drop in assaults and drop out because they're on Alpine or an uber hot map. Their behaviour should be tolerated as well when they're consistently making the game rougher for others who are playing through such conditions?

Upper limit, lower limit... the point is if people performed actions that against the COC in really poor gamesmanship then some time where they're not playing is deserved. But that decision doesn't rest with me though if I were to play with an individual with such a low moral base they can give a flying monkey about another that they're playing alongside ... I wouldn't want to play with that individual (in or out of game).

This person gets it:

Bilbo, on 08 October 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

I doubt initial offenses are considered for ban until after a warning is issued. If done enough a pattern of behavior could easily be established though.

Edited by Mystere, 08 October 2014 - 02:25 PM.

[Prezimonto]

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.

The biggest issue is that this isn't a sustainable way to deal with game modes, IF you want more game modes in the future. Some concession needs to be made for the large block of people who actually want MORE variety in how to play not less. This game's largest appeal is a stagnant game style it drives folks off who get bored. Add that the total population, obviously, isn't large enough to sustain a 4th game mode as it's already barely large enough to sustain 3, and how do you add a 4th mode?

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

If 100 players did it during a 24-hour period, should PGI really ban them? What about 1,000? 10,000? What should the upper limit be?

You didnt read the post where I already replied to this but I can copy/pasta too

Quote

IMO?

ANY

If youre breaking the rules you should be punished for it as a lesson for future people not to do it.

They dont seem to have any issues over doing it for other things in game or better yet here

[Domenoth]

Mystere, on 08 October 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

If 100 players did it during a 24-hour period, should PGI really ban them? What about 1,000? 10,000? What should the upper limit be?

If 1 player did it for 96 hours, shouldn't PGI cut him a break? What about 1000 hours? What should the upper limit be?

Edit:
I'm thinking more for the future of the game. The next time a change comes along that somebody disagrees with.

Edit 2:
People need to be held accountable for their actions.

Edited by Domenoth, 08 October 2014 - 02:28 PM.

[DaisuSaikoro Nagasawa]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

If they dont, ppl will do it every time they have an issue.

They have to make an example or they can expect it to happen over and over

Btw, people had a choice. They didn't HAVE to play. They could've talked with their accounts by not logging in.

The individuals who did these behaviours will do so in maps they don't care for or aren't built for their mechs, or when they see players that they're scared of or when they see too many missile boats or when they see too many Mad Dogs or when...

A dishonorable player is a dishonorable player and giving those people breaks is one thing but like those who were banned, sometimes people need actions to make individuals understand that their behaviors aren't without ramifications. I make few apologies here, anyone who performed those behaviours in game (no role play here) is a despicable person who is one of the lower echelons of online game play. Goons, griefers, trolls, hard core mud suckers. That's what they are.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Akita Rob, on 08 October 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

The really was no need to even have a poll, no point at all if they were going to roll it back with the minority vote.

I am curious what percentage was needed to keep it 60/40 or 70/30 maybe 80/20, maybe the Devs should tell us in advance what percentage they need to pass something, this is very sad. No more polls for me.

You missed the part where Russ said 80/70% I take it?

Graet so you lost so YOURE "throwing your toys out of the pram". Two wrongs DO make a right