9 replies to this topic

[Zoid]

You have two things to check, one is for your preferred mode and one is for modes you are willing to play. So if you check preferred for skirmish and all 3 for willing, you can be placed in any. If you only check skirmish for both, you won't get anything but skirmish, but your wait time may be longer.

Personally I don't get the issue with playing deathmatch in one spot or deathmatch in multiple spots, but this should fix that. If you leave everything checked as "willing" then it works like the new system, otherwise it's more like the old one.

[KamikazeRat]

i think they need to re-enable the voting, but for group queue only, made the biggest difference in group queue, most people thought it was going to be group queue.

your idea, is not bad. the only hole i see is i don't think many will select 1 mode for "prefer to play" and select more than 1 for "willing to play" at least in solo, they are probably going to say "prefer to play skirmish, and willing to play only skirmish" or what have you, very few are going to pick 2 in one box and 3 in the other, etc..

[LauLiao]

I don't know that this is exactly a "Solution" as you're not only giving MM more variables, but also creating priorities within those variables. I have my doubts the MM could handle that with any kind of efficacy.

[Zoid]

KamikazeRat, on 08 October 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

the only hole i see is i don't think many will select 1 mode for "prefer to play" and select more than 1 for "willing to play" at least in solo, they are probably going to say "prefer to play skirmish, and willing to play only skirmish" or what have you, very few are going to pick 2 in one box and 3 in the other, etc..

I feel like it's a minority of players who for some odd reason "hate" playing deathmatch in multiple places instead of just being able to deathball. This gives those players the option to say "no, I absolutely will NOT play this mode" while allowing everyone else to just vote for their favorite mode.

[Xarian]

LauLiao, on 08 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

I don't know that this is exactly a "Solution" as you're not only giving MM more variables, but also creating priorities within those variables. I have my doubts the MM could handle that with any kind of efficacy.

Programmatically what the OP is describing is actually quite trivial. Just take what is already in place now, and anyone who doesn't have the "willing to play game mode X" box gets skipped and placed in the next queue.

[White Bear 84]

Just make the voting optional and group by preferences.

[Hoax415]

The solution is two fold.

1) Group queue only.

2) If your group vetos a map mode. You gain -10% cbills.

2a) If its not too much work they could add in the ability to vote preference which would work just like voting did after last patch. Your more likely to see your preference but you can still see other game modes. This obviously would not affect cbills.

2b) When a team that has not veto'd any game modes plays a team that did veto one or two game modes. The non-veto team gains +10% cbills.

This way everyone benefits from the improved drops in group queue. Even the people veto'ing a map mode because in theory the cbill penalty will increase the number of people who play all 3 modes which means the pool of teams is bigger which means their matches will be better.

If the poll is any indication we currently have at least half the playerbase hard veto'ing one or more game modes. The goal is to reduce that number to only the people who would rather quit MWO than play Conquest or Skirmish while still giving those people the ability to avoid game modes they cannot stand.


But Hoax why is there a cbill penalty why not give people more cbills?

Its really the same difference, but lets be honest. PGI worries a lot about making money. The current cbill income rate is something they are comfortable with & they wouldn't mind giving people even less. Believe me that it will feel like a penalty either way if one group of players is earning less than the other group. Obviously I, as a player, have no problem with being given free cbills but PGI might have a problem with giving less incentive to buy Premium time (which is how they might see a blanket cbill earn rate buff).

Its also a much more useful thought experiment. Players who veto a game mode are in fact hurting the quality of match for everyone else. In theory if you trust elo to get anything right in MWO yaddayadda. So a penalty is fitting on some level.

If 3b is instituted we give that penalty money (sort of) to the team that was willing to play all 3 modes in order for all MWO players to find better matches. In this way there is a cbill bonus but not its more of a cbill wealth redistribution so PGI doesn't have to worry so much about it cutting into their bottom line.

Frankly I think if they had put the change only in the group queue we would have seen a much different response to the change and probably the poll would have been more in the 60-70% in favor range.

Edited by Hoax415, 08 October 2014 - 05:35 PM.

[Zordicron]

Here is an even easier one:

After matchmaker has formed two teams, at match start a new screen is displayed for all players in the match.

On this screen, there are two pictures, one on left, one on right. These pictures will be of a map, with a game mode attached to it. For instance:

Left pic: Caustic- Conquest
Right pic: Alpine-skirmish

Now, each player votes which one they want to play for this match. Hate conquest? Vote for Alpine skirmish. hate Alpine more then conquest? Vote Caustic, ETC ETC.

To code: map choice is random, so is game mode, except it is done sequentially:
MM chooses randomly map one, and game mode for map one. Then,
MM chooses another map. if 2nd map=first map, then reroll, until new map. THEN
MM chooses 2nd game mode. If 2nd mode =first mode, then, reroll until new mode.

If all you ever want is skirmish, odds are in your favor you will get it to vote on most of the time. If all you want is any of the 3 modes, you are in the same boat. if you like 2 of three, you are in luck, you are 100% going to get a mode to pick. Map choice can also now be factored into player decisions, and will add dynamics to it. Laserboat skirmish guy might hate assault mode, but he hates playing laserboat on terra therma even more, so he picks Frozen city assault over terra therma skirmish. ETC

This method is also 100% visable, with votes tally showing right on the picture as people vote in, with ability to change at any time. Timer counts down for 30 seconds, then whichever has higher vote= go time.


This method has seen use in many games, some FPS and some not even in the genre(like one of the Need for Speed games my boy plays). It is simple, straight forward and visual for all players, and offers an interesting dynamic for map/mode choice.

[Hoax415]

Creating entirely new UI and Matchmaking systems != simple.

I like the idea plenty but its a far cry from simplicity.

[Zordicron]

Hoax415, on 08 October 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

Creating entirely new UI and Matchmaking systems != simple.

I like the idea plenty but its a far cry from simplicity.

I meant simplicity in function/design. Coding a UI for this and like 6 lines of code for MM to run after it completes team selection isn't rocket science either, but I will give you it would take more code then simply restricting the current version to group mode. However, IMO that is a bandaid fix and an incomplete one.