419 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

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

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

50/50 split is being bullied?

That's like a Community Manager equating those critical to the game with harassment and misogyny.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Roadbeer, on 08 October 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

50/50 split is being bullied?

That's like a Community Manager equating those critical to the game with harassment and misogyny.

Or ppl equating someone who says things they dont like with a terrorist (Victor Morrison on HPG Reddit lol)

[Destructicus]

Foxfire, on 08 October 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

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.

Is that what I said I wanted?
No
I'm saying that this whole thing has set a bad precedent, the only thing the community has ever agreed on was Sarah's Jenner, theres always going to be people who are unhappy and everybody is going to cite the silent majority when something doesn't got he way they want.

That's my problem.

[Kerrisis]

LORD ORION, on 08 October 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

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.

This. Very, very this.

[Yukichi Fukuzawa]

God. Damn. It has been in a Day! How is that enough time to figure out if something works. The angry people ARE really angry but I mean, people need to learn to be flexible in their play or CW will rip them apart.

[Shredhead]

Roadbeer, on 08 October 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

50/50 split is being bullied?

That's like a Community Manager equating those critical to the game with harassment and misogyny.

I think you forget that it was intended to be kept in game for at least a week. Many people didn't even get a chance to test and weigh in on the poll. And a 50/50 split does not, by any means, demand rash action.

[RetroActive]

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

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

You have no idea how dense you sound, do you? All of this debate about the matchmaker change is occurring within the forums. ALL OF IT. There is no interaction with those that play this game, but never visit the forum. They have no way to vote in the poll about this subject.

Russ' decision to roll back the matchmaker change was most likely completely influenced by forum bullying and that poll. 48% is the minority, but I'm not sure you grasp the concept.

I agree that the forumites are a minority of the player base, but a minority of the minority is still the minority.

Edit: For grammar!

Edited by RetroActive, 08 October 2014 - 01:19 PM.

[Roadbeer]

Shredhead, on 08 October 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

I think you forget that it was intended to be kept in game for at least a week. Many people didn't even get a chance to test and weigh in on the poll. And a 50/50 split does not, by any means, demand rash action.

Regardless, your hyperbolic rhetoric was showing.

Also, if something unexpected is rearing it's ugly head, they should just leave it in?

Edited by Roadbeer, 08 October 2014 - 01:19 PM.

[TamerSA]

Sad day again for MWO... Seems like there will be no positive progress when you are left with a community like this.

People were not even prepared to give it a chance. I don't care what the numbers or calculations say, I can't remember when last I had such even matches. Today I've played around 10 games, with none of them ending outside of a 3 kill margin. They were close and competitive, regardless of match type.

I had a conquest game where we controlled 3/5 points on the map, and had to defend 5v5 at the last location. Also enjoyed a fairly equal amount of games on all types.

Now we have to revert back to unbalanced games because of the community... Sad day indeed...

[Kerrisis]

Shredhead, on 08 October 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

I think you forget that it was intended to be kept in game for at least a week. Many people didn't even get a chance to test and weigh in on the poll. And a 50/50 split does not, by any means, demand rash action.

It does when a company makes a change that puts a little under 50% of their income at risk. I can't speak for anyone else but I was starting to get more and more annoyed with having to abandon mechs on a Conquest field. I had 3 locked out simultaneously at one point.

RetroActive, on 08 October 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

You have no idea how dense you sound, do you? All of this debate about the matchmaker change is occurring within the forums. ALL OF IT. There is no interaction with those that play this game, but never visit the forum. They have no way to vote in the poll about this subject.

Russ' decision to roll back the matchmaker change was most likely completely influenced by forum bullying and that poll. 48% is the minority, but I'm not sure you grasp the concept.

I agree that the forumites are a minority of the player base, but a minority of the minority is still the minority.

Edit: For grammar!

You don't seem to understand. Think of it as a pair of snapshots - before and after. Before the MM change, everyone was a bit whiney but generally content. After, (arguably) 48% of the playerbase were horribly, horribly pissed off. You don't get money out of pissed off people. They leave.
Russ made a business decision, pure and simple. Lament it all you like, he did the right thing for PGI.

Edited by Kerrisis, 08 October 2014 - 01:25 PM.

[Postumus]

I think this is a big lose for the poll system, but a big win for the game, especially the group queue. It is obvious that Conquest requires a much different play style and mech build than Assault or Skirmish, and being thrown into a game mode you didn't choose with an inappropriate build is a giant pain in the butt.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that the dev's could interpret this as a failure of user polls, and be discouraged from trying again. I really hope that they instead take this as a learning moment instead, and fix what went wrong with the process.

The best possible solution to soliciting direct player feedback on design decisions in the future is a survey built into the launcher or mechlab. That is the only way the dev's will be able to reach a critical mass of users, without the kind of reporting bias you see from putting the polls in the forum.

TamerSA, on 08 October 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Sad day again for MWO... Seems like there will be no positive progress when you are left with a community like this.

People were not even prepared to give it a chance. I don't care what the numbers or calculations say, I can't remember when last I had such even matches. Today I've played around 10 games, with none of them ending outside of a 3 kill margin. They were close and competitive, regardless of match type.

I had a conquest game where we controlled 3/5 points on the map, and had to defend 5v5 at the last location. Also enjoyed a fairly equal amount of games on all types.

Now we have to revert back to unbalanced games because of the community... Sad day indeed...

Also, I keep seeing posts like this. ELO and match stomping are much less related than people think. The experienced players have said it, even the dev's have said it. Mechwarrior matches are not a series of 1v1 duels, where if the players are just matched evenly enough, the match score will always be near even. Even with closely matched teams, a vast majority of games are going to end up with a win by at least a 2:1 margin in kills. In my experience, the games that end as 8,9,10 to 12 are either flukes where both side's tactics fell apart, or those where teams showed no coordination, with no focused fire, everyone shooting a different mech, no grouping, etc..

Edited by Postumus, 08 October 2014 - 01:38 PM.

[Voivode]

Jeb, on 08 October 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

the reason I hate conquest is that the rewards are just as good or better for playing it as a skirmish, and when I lose a conquest game cause my team doesn't bother capping, I get angry... when I am angry I am not having fun, and that is when I uncheck conquest from my game type, and can play and have fun again...

I don't mind losing conquest if my team tried to play it as a conquest map... but I see red when I lose cause they don't even bother while the other team is off capping.

Understandable. I'm in it for the brawl, winning matters less than getting in a knock down, drag out fight. The idea of skirmish is that the fight is what matters most, but the reality is a game decided by who takes the first few losses in a long range snipe fest. To me, not fun. Conquest more often fulfills what I anticipated from skirmish, so I guess you could say conquest is more skirmish than skirmish.

[Shredhead]

Roadbeer, on 08 October 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

Regardless, your hyperbolic rhetoric was showing.

Also, if something unexpected is rearing it's ugly head, they should just leave it in?

Hyperbolic wording? I think you should reread the poll thread a bit. Also teamkilling, disconnecting and suiciding. I'd call that bullying, yes.
And a freaking week is not too much to ask for. There was also nothing "unexpected". If it'd been a clear 70/30 or more against it, ok. But it wasn't.

[Abivard]

When I walk outside and it is raining, I do not need to stand in the rain for a week to know I am getting wet.

[Mystere]

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

And? So they abstained through ignorance?

No. They voted on the new poll to put the kibosh on the changes.

[Zultor]

I don't care one way or the other...it isn't that big of a deal for me. What is a big deal is that PGI wasted resources coding, testing, etc something like this and then yanked it immediately. They need to do better at designing their game. Listening to the community (however you want to do it through polls, community council, etc) is great but the community shouldn't be driving the train. Not everything should be a democracy.

[Bilbo]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 08 October 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

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

I expect they would know what the population was. I don't expect they would know whether it is/was an aberration after such a short period of time.

[RetroActive]

Kerrisis, on 08 October 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

You don't seem to understand. Think of it as a pair of snapshots - before and after. Before the MM change, everyone was a bit whiney but generally content. After, (arguably) 48% of the playerbase were horribly, horribly pissed off. You don't get money out of pissed off people. They leave.
Russ made a business decision, pure and simple. Lament it all you like, he did the right thing for PGI.

My ridiculing of this guy has absolutely nothing to do with the matchmaker change. It has everything to do with his grasp of the term "majority".

[Mystere]

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

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.

Sometimes, it is better to nip a general insurrection in the bud before it gets worse.

[Roadbeer]

Shredhead, on 08 October 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

There was also nothing "unexpected".

Really, so the anecdotal evidence of people specifically not choosing a mode and getting it 7 times in a row is how it's supposed to work?

Stahp, just stahp.