30 replies to this topic

[Wing 0]

Please Read this and Keep this thread constructive only Please. Thank you

Ok. now that the matchmaker has returned to before it was changed, I think we needed a thread that involves telling PGI what they need to do to get the entire community to agree with next time. The Gamemode Vote Thread was surely the most accurate voting and viewed thread for a good while now. As many of us knew, the community was quickly dividing itself in 2 LARGE Groups. I must remind you we had this problem in a similar situation before in the past and it was reversed because of it.

One of the things i suggest seeing is that they to make the PTS version have more priority to be used when testing changes like the new matchmaker, new maps, and of course Community Warfare later on. One of the things that can get people into doing the PTS more is provide some reward system for being on the PTS.

example:

1. Cbill Rewards. We know that modivation isnt easy to get people playing the PTS i know how it went. If the staff had provided a reward like cbills based on many hours they play in the PTS, those cbill rewards should get injected to the main server later on after the next patch day.

2. Premium Time. Yes we had this before and it worked out just fine. players who did the PTS when testing the 3333 rule were given 3 days of premium time after playing 6 or more games or so no matter the win or loss.

3. GXP Rewards. Wouldn't that be nice to see as well? we know that recent modules have people spending GXP on them and getting them used later on. the amount of GXP should be given based on how many hours have been spent on the PTS during test events like the cbill reward system. they would get the injection on the next patch day.

As you know all know a lot of people are not going to agree with this and mainly they wont because there are a few things to think about. There was a reason for the New Matchmaker to being reversed and I don't think many people are going to understand this.

1. This game is a FREE TO PLAY GAME. Like all games that are free to play, they have to find a way to make income to keep the game going and keep it growing.

Example: Clan Wave 1, 2, and the A La Cartes. PGI has been making a big amount of income thanks to these packages and the past packs that first started and that also includes hero mechs as well. Im sure everyone agrees that we have to pay for some stuff at some point.

When the vote thread first came out, about roughly 70% of the community was NOT aware of it and didnt know till patch day. Then came the complaints and requests for refunds coming in from customers who paid so much to not only get mechs they wanted but to play a game they can have not only fun on but freedom to choose the game mode they like. When the staff at PGI saw the amount of votes were done on the Game Mode Vote Poll 2.0, it was big. Not only the 1300 people who voted NO, Most of them might have been players who just recently bought the Wave 2 packs and before but also have been loyal customers since the days of Closed Beta. When your seeing something like that with only a 90 vote difference between YES and NO, it means that PGI did something they shouldn't have done and now have to go back and rethink what went wrong on it. Im honestly glad they did this move because i knew what would happen if the new system stayed in place. It would've been very ugly.

First off, I want to see a matchmaker that EVERYONE can agree to and not have a community that is GREATLY DIVIDED like we now know. Dont you think the same way? There are problems with certain gamemodes that need to be looked at and heres a good one to talk about.

1. Conquest. This gamemode has been a problem for players by FAR and need to be worked on again. There are alot of things that need to be looked at that can get players wanting to have a reason for playing it.

Example:

• Cbill Rewards. Were being paid alot less than Assault and Skirmish regardless of winning or loosing. This is 1 of the issues why players mainly avoid this gamemode. A change needs done.
  
• 
  
• Maps. Lots of these maps are not great for conquest and im sure there are those who share the views on it. Alpine peaks and Terra Therma are good examples that need to be looked at but when you look at caustic valley and minning collective, its a good size and all for something like this.
  
• 
  
• Capture points. There needs to be a change for this one. Capping at times take way too long and frustrates the hell out of people. maybe changing the points from time to time would be nice to keep it interesting as well.
  
• 
  
• Drop points. This is something that needs look at for sure. Lots of maps have posed problems with this in general and nothing has changed for a very long time now. sick of getting terrible drop locations time after time again?
  
• 
  
• Your thoughts. What can be done to make it want players to play it again?

There are problems that Assault and Skirmish have too but i want to see what everyone thinks should be looked at later on.



Please understand this. When that matchmaker went out, it sparked a huge outrage and i sure dont want to see something like that happen ever again. Had anyone listened in on the recent pod cast 123 by phill and the guys at NGNG? The rant was pretty bad and i understand where Phill was getting at with it but there things that everyone needs to think about.

Population Triumphs the game. As a person who has done game design before and knows this. MWO is Free to play. Our main concern is the playerbase and population of the game. How do you expect a game to work as intended without the population needed to work with the new matchmaker if people are not willing to play with it?

Not every system will work with everyone. There were other reasons why the new matchmaker was reverted back after that vote. I only talked about 1 of the possible reasons. there were more. Nothing is going to be perfect. There will always be a PRO/CON not to mention the FLOW.

What do you guys think needs to be done that everyone can agree with? Be sure to read and post. We need to let PGI know that we are willing to voice out against them if something isnt right. Keep this thread constructive and input your ideas.

Normally i dont go posting something like this. Usually i post in the patch feedback section most of the time trying to help players with technical problems and all that but when that new Match Maker came in and tried gave it a shot, i had no choice but to raise my voice against it.

Edited by Wing 0, 09 October 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[Uncl Munkeh]

Nice Wing.

[Tezcatli]

Replace telling what to do with suggesting. This notion of us telling them what to do is getting out of hand. : /

[Slepnir]

2 things
.cap points need to work like the battlefield games-quick cap time, slow resource gain. , this forces teams to actually fight over caps.

.cap location-terra is a fantastic CQ map, alpine used to be until they moved the points right next to each other. . all your doing by using small maps or cap points close to each other is promoting skirmish play where the objectives are ignored and lights/mediums cannot do their intended role.

[Wing 0]

Slepnir, on 09 October 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

2 things
.cap points need to work like the battlefield games-quick cap time, slow resource gain. , this forces teams to actually fight over caps.

.cap location-terra is a fantastic CQ map, alpine used to be until they moved the points right next to each other. . all your doing by using small maps or cap points close to each other is promoting skirmish play where the objectives are ignored and lights/mediums cannot do their intended role.

Point taken.

[Ph30nix]

the first thing they need to do IS FIX THE GAME MODES!!!

the biggest problem mode is Conquest,
Cut the cap time down to about 1/4th what it is for nodes (maybe make each node worth a differnt amount and make the cap time based on value of node, like center node is worth 2x normal or even 3x normal)
set the rewards in a way so they end up being equal to assault or skirmish, (why you only get 1/2 the rewards for kills/assists and such has always bugged me)

skirmish is fine how it is for what it is

assault i dont know its not that bad only thing is turrents could use a rework. maybe make them so they are actually a threat but a fair one. Bugs me that they dont show up on radar half the time until you are within like 300 meters
and reduce that super armor they have when not deployed use terrain if you want to limit ability to snipe them.

[Triordinant]

If y'all go to your Profile page, click the Stats tab, then click Challenges, you'll see some of the "research" on this issue PGI has planned for the weekend.

[Wing 0]

Triordinant, on 09 October 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

If y'all go to your Profile page, click the Stats tab, then click Challenges, you'll see some of the "research" on this issue PGI has planned for the weekend.

I saw that and I think I know why they issued it.

[Dracol]

Triordinant, on 09 October 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

If y'all go to your Profile page, click the Stats tab, then click Challenges, you'll see some of the "research" on this issue PGI has planned for the weekend.

Oh the QQ from Dwhale players that they can't use their favorite toy to win everything will be glorious.

[EgoSlayer]

Fixing the game modes would help for me, Conquest needs the most work because the C-Bill rewards are crap.
Conquest:
Put the rewards up to 90% of what Assault and Skirmish are, then increase the ticket bonus so that it actually means you could make more playing to cap instead just killing everyone. And/or Make the reward for a resource win pay out 1.5 million C-bills split across the winning team. Reduce the cap time in half, and reduce the accural rate slightly so there is time on larger maps for things that don't move 150Kph to have a chance at getting to them.

Skirmish:
Skirmish is OK until it becomes 'Find Waldo' on some large map. There needs to be another victory condition other than the fixed 15 minute timer.
Suggestion: Tickets. Each team has 2500 tickets(or some other acceptable value, would require some play testing to make sure the matches don't always end early when the outcome is still up in the air). Each death on a team causes the ticket loss value to decrease by 1 ticket per second. So by the time it's down to the last mech, there are 11 tickets rolling off each second. Meaning that if everyone met in the middle, dukes it out and it was 11-0 and that last one ran off, the game would be over in about 4 minutes instead of spending the next 14 minutes looking for the hiding ECM Spider/raven/commando/cicida/etc

Assault
I kinda prefer assault since it doesn't have the 'Find Waldo' aspect of Skirmish. Except it sucks on River city to no end. River city needs to be removed from Assault because the base locations don't support it.
Also, "base swapping" still happens on a few of the smaller maps where the teams miss each other and end up at the enemy base. First one capping wins. "Fun". Turrets help with the late game cap prevention, but the early game murder balls showing up at the base kill turrets like they are nothing.
Suggestion: Turrets keep their damage reduction for the first 7-10 minutes of the match even when deployed and base capture rate is inversely related to the number of remaining turrets. Deters the early base cap since the turrets will be able to deal out significant damage and slow down the attackers, and even if some light mech is able to thread their way into a safe zone from the turrets the cap rate would be pitiful.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 09 October 2014 - 08:52 PM.

[Sirius Drake]

Tezcatli, on 09 October 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

Replace telling what to do with suggesting. This notion of us telling them what to do is getting out of hand. : /

This.
So much this.
We are customers. We should have a opinion. We should voice it for sure.
But we do not own this company. Plus, PGI are only human as well. People do make mistakes.
We should voice our opinion with less outrage and in a more productive way.
And if our opinion isnt heard we should not react like spoiled Kids.

[Jun Watarase]

Uh, everytime the PTS server goes up, feedback is provided and nothing is done. Remember when people told PGI about the MM bugs months ago on the PTS server? And PGI's response was to completely ignore it, not even acknowledge the people posting about it, and then go live, to disastrous results?

Fix PGI and we will avoid problems like that.

[Sirius Drake]

Jun Watarase, on 09 October 2014 - 11:04 PM, said:

Uh, everytime the PTS server goes up, feedback is provided and nothing is done. Remember when people told PGI about the MM bugs months ago on the PTS server? And PGI's response was to completely ignore it, not even acknowledge the people posting about it, and then go live, to disastrous results?

Fix PGI and we will avoid problems like that.

Month ago like...when IGP was still there?
And in the last twitch Russ admited they made huge mistakes with the provided feedback.

[Duke Nedo]

Conquest: Agree that cap time should go down, and a bit slower ticking rate. I think objectives are needed, but pure conquest like this works best if you have respawn/resources based games imo. The main effect of conquest in the MWO deathmatch environment is "frustrating losses" to points when you kicked the arse of the other team, or "undeserved victories". You dont get this with respawns/resources because then the only objective is to win by conquest. I am not saying I want respawn, just saying this game mode in its current form doesn't really work for me because of this. I do play it though for variation.

Assault: Don't really like this one because if you have an initial engagement and say one team comes out slightly on top with 6-4 mechs remaining, then the team that won the initial engagement needs to retreat and basecamp to secure the win, and the team that are 2 mechs down will be reluctant to attack against all odds... so often it ends with either both teams sitting out the timer, or that the "winning" team blunders into the "losing" teams base and lose the game because they don't feel like camping when they are winning.

Skirmish: Pure deathmatch, I like the tickets idea posted above to get rid of the hide and seek you sometimes get.

If I have an idea perhaps that would be to change conquest into something where the objectives instead are facilities that you can destroy/take ownership of, that give some kind of bonus to the owning side. Could be comm-center to do strikes, or radar facility for intel, or something like that.

[Impyrium]

PTS wouldn't be suitable for map voting testing, I think. You don't get the whole playerbase, and you're not getting accurate results. Sure it should be used, but in this case, I wish people didn't get so vocal on this issue. I can tell you it DID make a difference in group queue, and watching Sean's NGNG streams both before and after the revert only reinforced that.

[Lily from animove]

your ideas have major flaws:
No 1 community divided into 2 Large groups. Thats wrong, the Forum community was divided. But the average casual will mostlikely not be voiced since tey are usually not Forum active.

No.2 PTS is a horrible idea for testing MM, why? only a prt of those even active in the forum will participate there. So from a subselection excluding the casuals you make now even a subselection of only having the players dedicated enough to install update and participate on the PTS. This is totally inaccurate as a valid sample.

It's fun that taking off the vote is now such a game breaker while introducing it never was such a big improvements. So whats up here? only a few being upset with it voice it as loud as they can. But the majority won't care.
But what nearly no one knew is what impact it had in the groupqueue on the worse MM. You only heard of that by some threads complainign about how the average group joe had to meet high skilled groups.
So in reality we have a lot group players being affected negatively. But they never voiced so loud, because tey didn't even knew somethign is wrong. Some may just blamed the game and probably left it at all when they are new players. The other side is those who have chosen their gamemodes, and now kinda feel butthurt and rant or threat abut leaving when its gone. But strangely as we didn't had the vote system the game was working for them as well.
And simply the fact that90% of non skirmish games end as a skirmish shows how much useless hot air these palyers just throw out. Because actually we have nearly only skirmish mode.

Yes I also had matches in a DW on therma where I have not even seen a single opponents, that happens, but wow, such a game breaking thing? not really. More like some people got used to bring their mechs in favour for their game mode. But now they may not sit in the suited mech and that kinda makes them have to dela with the downside they don't want to. But a laserboat also has to deal with terra therma, still we don't complain about that all the time.

Everytime you load a mech into the queue it has its ups and downs, you cna try to amke that mech an average suitable build or a specialised. And you have to live with the consequences. Nothign to QQ about. I guess the big epeen stroking people who want to make kills kills kills now rant the hardest about how they can not bring their superfirepower stations optimised for skirmish into a match to find 1 out of 10 coquest not ending in skwirmish.

[Lupin]

My first point is that rewards should be based on game mode.
e.g. Conquest more Cbills and XP for winning the game by conquest NOT just killing everyone.

Conquest capture timers need to be faster so that you really have to fight for bases and defend them.

Drop zones and base locations on ALL maps and game modes need looking at and changing, worst being River City.

[Chrithu]

I just want to say again that this whole affair would have ended quite differently if the first poll had already included Russ' detailed explanation and would have been similarly advertised.

I have this gut feeling that a lot of the NO voters did vote NO because they did not know that it was planned and suddenly found it in the patchnotes and felt it was forced upon then. That was a rage mode on switch. They did not care for the reasons they just voted NO as a reflex so to say.

The lessons to be learned are this: If you want community input on such decisions: Be as clear as even possible about what is planned and make sure everyone has had a chance to find it.

I am pretty sure that if the first thread/poll about the "Gamemode Voting" would have included the detailed explanation we got later, been open longer and advertised in the same way as the poll after the patch we would now be testing this change for two weeks and then we could have another vote whether the feature should stay or not. Simply because people would have known it is coming, it is a test and would have been able to make friends with the thought of having to be prepared for any gamemode for two weeks.

It was there for 48 hours during the week. Not many people can claim to have tried for more than maybe 40 matches. I bet most especially from NO faction did 5 drops got one match in a disliked mode and ragequitted. That is neither enough data for PGI to make a judgement nor for the players themselves. Any experience report is anecdotal at best, and my anecdote is that with the game mode voting I had better matches and faster searching than without it and still mostly got my prefered Assault game mode.

What I did learn personally is to keep all modes selected from now on because that guarantees me a match within a minute of waiting.

What I also did learn is that I saw very little conquest games. This mode seems to be the least liked in the solo queue, and of the many suggestions made throughout the forums to improving it I prefer these:

Better rewards for capping the spots.
Drastically shorter captimes.

Edited by Jason Parker, 10 October 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[Vandul]

Offering rewards for playing on the PTS will do two things.

It will drive the player base to the PTS, but only when the PTS is up and live.

It will empty out the regular servers and only complicate the entire matchmaking system to begin with.

MWO doesnt have 11 million subscribers. A migrating player base between two playing fields could be a disaster. Not saying that they shouldnt use the PTS, just saying its going to have consequences.

[Haji1096]

Voting could be offered to the user during the client's patch screen pre-log in.

That way PGI would know for certain that any user who is playing was at least offered the option of voting in a poll.