419 replies to this topic

[Gauvan]

Listen, I have sympathy for the PGI folks in that sometimes things seem like a damned-if-you-do-or-don't situation, but this change was in place for a day and only promoted to folks who are highly engaged with the forums.

I've had about two hours of game time with the change and regardless of my opinion of the change that's not enough time for me to make an informed decision. I would have liked to have seen at least a week of having the change in place so non-forum regulars can catch on to the change and see how they feel about it.

I'm not trying to say that folks who are passionate about MWO on the forums aren't passionate about MWO—just that they represent a subset of people who A: Like MWO and B: Like Internet Forums.

I'm really looking forward to the in-game polling system, not because it will have a better signal-to-noise ratio than the forums but that it will provide a different noisy message for PGI to use as feedback.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Russ wanted a strong majority (explicitly stated) and did not get it so he reversed the decision. Fair enough. I voted yes for example but I do not feel disenfranchised in the slightest here. The majority was not big enough to meet the bar he set so there we are.

We all go back to the state of the game we were just at and continue to wait for tweaks that will make the markedly significant positive difference PGI is hoping for.

Seems reasonable.

[KamikazeRat]

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

I really hope that they come back with change ONLY for the group queue. The numbers showed that the change had no affect on the solo matches but had an affect on the group matches. The more people that you can bring in a team min/maxed for a specific game mode the greater influence you can have on the outcome.

If people want guaranteed game modes they can play in the solo queue or private matches because both of those types of games can support the exclusions. As it stands right now the group queue cannot support competitive matches AND support game mode exclusions.

THIS....(and im sure its been said many times since, i don't feel like reading all 8 pages thus far)

also, most people that were supportive of this before hand, thought it was going to be group queue
Russ only talked about group queue in the Town Halls
and Group Queue sees all the benefit and much less drawback to this.

seems like a no-brainer to me, hard selections for solo, soft "votes" for group, best of all worlds.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mazerius, on 08 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

How is that over generalizing when Im refering specificly to posts Ive "read" personally today and yesturday, and thats a LOT of posts.

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

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

[Livewyr]

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.

Unless it is ECM..


[Sucker punch]

-----------------------------
Seriously I hope PGI does not treat every change this way... this community is far more capable of spewing garbage and venom all over the forums than constructive criticism. If they use this model to introduce everything, you might as well set it in a time capsule, it will still be the same whenever you want to look at it again.

[WM Jeri]

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

So what you are saying is that if the 52% who were voting for the change now threaten to leave the game because of the change PGI should change it back?

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.

So lots of free to play folks who never spent a dime on the game give a vote...do they contribute to PGI operating costs vs a player who spends money or some money.

So if you take the total operational cost and spread that across the playerbase you have a cost per player associated where all players start out equal. Then if you bring into that the purchasing history of each player you now have a net difference where that player vs a player who spent nothing now has a modifier. These are the people paying the bills.

If I was a forward thinking guy I would consider say a way to join that history with the poll results of how indivdual players voted thereby discerning who is paying my bills and where to weigh my decisions especially on polling where there is no clear definitive majority opinion in the community.

But then again thats just the businessman in me and I do this every day with my customers. Bottom line I know who butters my employees bread pays my bills and keeps our lights on. All customers are important yes but the reality is I have some I pay more attention to when things get rough than others, because they pay for that attention, I owe it to them and my employees to focus resources and efforts to those that pay.

I have no idea as to what this meteric would derive I am just pointing out that in a commercial endeavor voting is not the same as in a truly democratic or republic institution. Just food for thought. And who knows maybe PGI does look at the playerbase this way. If they don't I suggest they do and integrate this aspect into their polling mechanism, because I do know this, you cannot manage what you do not measure.

[Marmon Rzohr]

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.

This is just my opinion, but it might have been a better idea to give at least a few days for people to try out the new system on a larger sample of games before putting the poll up.

I think it's extremely unlikely that so many people would find the change so nasty after they had the change to try it out a bit more.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Mercules, on 08 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

And? So they abstained through ignorance?

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

[Rebas Kradd]

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 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.

[Greenjulius]

Mawai, on 08 October 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

Huh ... I assume you mean in the group queue?

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

As Russ as stated the change made NO significant difference to the Elo balance in matches in the solo queue. NONE.

So if you actually liked the improvement in Elo then you were ONLY playing group matches .. correct?

If that is the case then you should get behind a movement to keep the feature in group matches and dump it from the solo queue.

That is correct. I dropped with a group of 5-8 people perhaps 15 matches last night. The matches were much more competitive. I didn't try solo matches yet. I was hoping to do that tonight.

Edited by Greenjulius, 08 October 2014 - 12:34 PM.

[AgroAlba]

Jeb, on 08 October 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

I disagree... this wasn't the right fix for uneven matches... honestly they gave it a try which is good... It didn't seem to have the effect they hoped for, or upset a lot more people then expected, so they are reverting... now they need to look at it from other angles and see if they can come up with something else to try.

Didn't have the effect they hoped for? People gave it all of a day. Not even a week, a day.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

KamikazeRat, on 08 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

i don't feel like reading all 8 pages thus far)

Mercules, on 08 October 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

abstained through ignorance

lol

[Mercules]

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.

That was my issue with the whole thing. People haven't even given it a chance after not voting on it. Terroristic threats is what they resorted to, for the most part. I say let them have their way and revert back but then you had best punish each and every one of them that did so during that period with at least a temporary ban for breaking the Code of Conduct.

If a protester throws rocks through windows they get charged with vandalism, even if their cause is a good one, they went about it in the wrong way. This is the same thing.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

I gotta say its pretty interesting to be on the other side of the argument a couple years later from not being the target group anymore and being the minority to not wanting the minority to rule the game

[Bilbo]

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.

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.

[Mercules]

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.

So lots of free to play folks who never spent a dime on the game give a vote...do they contribute to PGI operating costs vs a player who spends money or some money.

So if you take the total operational cost and spread that across the playerbase you have a cost per player associated where all players start out equal. Then if you bring into that the purchasing history of each player you now have a net difference where that player vs a player who spent nothing now has a modifier. These are the people paying the bills.

If I was a forward thinking guy I would consider say a way to join that history with the poll results of how indivdual players voted thereby discerning who is paying my bills and where to weigh my decisions especially on polling where there is no clear definitive majority opinion in the community.

But then again thats just the businessman in me and I do this every day with my customers. Bottom line I know who butters my employees bread pays my bills and keeps our lights on. All customers are important yes but the reality is I have some I pay more attention to when things get rough than others, because they pay for that attention, I owe it to them and my employees to focus resources and efforts to those that pay.

I have no idea as to what this meteric would derive I am just pointing out that in a commercial endeavor voting is not the same as in a truly democratic or republic institution. Just food for thought. And who knows maybe PGI does look at the playerbase this way. If they don't I suggest they do and integrate this aspect into their polling mechanism, because I do know this, you cannot manage what you do not measure.

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

[RetroActive]

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

I thought it would teach them to listen to the majority not the minority

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

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Marmon Rzohr, on 08 October 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

This is just my opinion, but it might have been a better idea to give at least a few days for people to try out the new system on a larger sample of games before putting the poll up.

I think it's extremely unlikely that so many people would find the change so nasty after they had the change to try it out a bit more.

New poll!

"should PGI re-revert the change to give ppl a chance to get to know the chance before deciding if being forced to play game modes they dont want to play is bad?"

[DoctorDetroit]

I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.

Bill Cosby

Edited by DoctorDetroit, 08 October 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[Gallowglas]

I'll just say what I said in another thread:

I sincerely hope if you're one of those who liked the vote-for-mode method that you're selecting all modes in your own game selections. If not, well...you're really contributing to your own problems.