35 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

I love the game but there are some maps I just do not care for, either because I just never seem to do well on them, or, due to the horrific geometry issues that plague them, ie: Viridian Bog, HPG Relay.

All I'm saying is, you're not forcing game modes down our throats, the group leader can select which modes the group is willing to play, so why can't we have the same functionality for maps?

I want to continue loving the game but over two years of putting up with various frustrations with no sure way to avoid them other than NOT PLAY seems rather short sighted on PGI's part.

Seriously guys, just how hard can it be to add a map option and have checkboxes that can be selected/unselected for a more desired map rotation?

The nice thing about such a feature too is you'd very quickly have some statistics that would let you know which maps are bad and/or stale and need work.

[Aiden Skye]

Really? You want PGI waste their time on map options? Longer que times anyone? Not to mention the min maxing that will happen if PGI did this and the fracturing of the player base. You really did not think this through.

I rather them revisit older maps for quality control

[Dimento Graven]

W A R K H A N, on 13 February 2015 - 10:08 PM, said:

Really? You want PGI waste their time on map options?

Really?! I rather them revisit them for quality control

And while they are 'revisiting' them for quality control, wouldn't it be nice to be able to avoid them?

And yes, as we get more and more and more maps, I believe this will become more and more of an issue. The last few maps have had SERIOUS issues, one of the last ones so bad that they actually had to pull it from rotation altogether.

I believe allowing the same sort of selection option for maps as we have for game modes will go a LONG way in allowing the players to have more control over their gaming experience and allow them to avoid unnecessary frustration.

[ThrashInc]

Or they could just completely scrap their **** maps.

We'd only be left with 3 but it would be an improvement.

[Dimento Graven]

GundamStompyRobotChurchy, on 13 February 2015 - 10:12 PM, said:

Or they could just completely scrap their **** maps.

We'd only be left with 3 but it would be an improvement.

"****" maps is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

The maps may not be broken, just more challenging to a players particular build/play preferences.

Lots of people hate Terra Therma, but there are those of us who don't mind it.

Lots of other people hate Caustic Valley, but it's one of my favorite maps.

I myself, CANNOT STAND Viridian Bog, and loath HPG Manifold due to their unfinished state with geometry issues that plague them and make anyone who likes AIMING have to suffer the frustrations of, "Ok is that the wall/tree where it sticks out invisibly 30 extra feet, or is it the one next to it?"

Why not have the option to select which maps we want in our rotation like we can select which game modes. Me? I >>HATE<< with an unending passion Conquest, and will only tolerate in small doses Assault, but am quite fine with Skirmish, but I know many warriors who have different preferences.

When we solo we can play our preferences, and when we're grouped we compromise with the over all preference of the majority.

I don't see it as a major inconsistency to expect the same for maps...

[Deathlike]

The more you limit stuff, the more MM has to work.

As it is, people hate certain modes already. Now on hating certain maps will make the MM's job far harder.

Any limitations set for user preference will in fact break other things in the process.

If it was already struggling before when the "squrrelly" forced modes were in play... you're actually exacerbating the issue if you are disabling certain maps intentionally (I'm not talking about Factory intentionally being out of the rotation... I'm talking about saying "I hate X map" and disabling even 3 or 4 maps that are in the rotation).

It amounts to the same deal where people are arguing about "factoring ECM" in the MM... that's just not going to work very well.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 February 2015 - 10:21 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 13 February 2015 - 10:19 PM, said:

The more you limit stuff, the more MM has to work.

As it is, people hate certain modes already. Now on hating certain maps will make the MM's job far harder.

Any limitations set for user preference will in fact break other things in the process.

If it was already struggling before when the "squrrelly" forced modes were in play... you're actually exacerbating the issue if you are disabling certain maps intentionally (I'm not talking about Factory intentionally being out of the rotation... I'm talking about saying "I hate X map" and disabling even 3 or 4 maps that are in the rotation).

Deathlike, I understand what you're saying but from my standard play experience MM is pretty much broken anyway.

My average wait time to drop is well over 3 minutes, trending upwards, and more often than not I'm waiting upwards of 5 minutes. When I get in a match it's usually one of the following scenarios:

1. ROFLSTOMP, one side or the other, I get highest damage and in a loss the 11 other people are apparently "new" to the game, in a win the majority on the other team were "new".
2. A good match, win or lose, one that might actually qualify for a non-trolling "ggclose" at the end.
3. A win, and I carried with 5 or more kills and 1200+ damage.

Two out of the 3 scenarios makes me feel like MM failed.

I don't give two craps about MM, and I'd be willing to wait 20 minutes for a match to avoid Viridian Bog and HPG Manifold.

I'm sorry but it completely disrupts the 'suspension of disbelief' that you need in all good movies and games to think that I pick a 'mech say I'm ready to go, then only to have the drop ship pilot toss a sack on my head and drop me off on some random planet. No, I'm fairly certain that for the most part, soldiers KNOW where their going well before they get there.

We should at least be willing to give it a try. I seriously doubt it would be all that much more 'work' for MM. Theoretically there's any number of every available map being setup for matches, I don't find it unreasonable to just avoid putting people in queues for certain maps they don't have selected.

EDIT: Besides if MM was all that important than why don't we have it implemented for CW?

So that begs the question, do we really need it at all?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 13 February 2015 - 10:31 PM.

[Deathlike]

Dimento Graven, on 13 February 2015 - 10:28 PM, said:

I don't give two craps about MM, and I'd be willing to wait 20 minutes for a match to avoid Viridian Bog and HPG Manifold.

You might wait 20 mins. Everyone else would whine about it. You are not going to like the whining regardless.

Quote

We should at least be willing to give it a try. I seriously doubt it would be all that much more 'work' for MM. Theoretically there's any number of every available map being setup for matches, I don't find it unreasonable to just avoid putting people in queues for certain maps they don't have selected.

It is more work. Once you add more limits/constraints to a system, it becomes more complicated and worse. The fewer the filters, the better the results in terms of the ETA to getting a game, but not the QUALITY of the game.

If no filters existed, the speed of the MM would be like the days before the first iteration of the MM (weight matching only) would be stupidly fast.

Quote

EDIT: Besides if MM was all that important than why don't we have it implemented for CW?

Because... those matches are actually harder to fill.. even at peak times. This is a sad commentary of reality.

Quote

So that begs the question, do we really need it at all?

Technically no, but also technically yes.

The part of it that is no is that you can create matches however you want the way you like it, but on the other hand these are not private matches....

The yes part is that it has a lot more to do with the NPE or just the new player population. Back when we actually have no Elo MM, it was actually "whose constructed team is better than the others". It would just be over before it started when you had a decent 4-man going vs whatever the opfor had in 8v8. You'd drive people out faster and it's most notably obvious in CW play where coordinated groups would easily be superior to whatever they normally faced against. So, it's needed or we'd be driving significantly more people away.

It's not just a one-step-simple-fix issue. You're breaking a lot more fundamental issues this game has ONLY for a personal benefit. This doesn't help the game whatsoever.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 February 2015 - 10:40 PM.

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 13 February 2015 - 10:39 PM, said:

You might wait 20 mins. Everyone else would whine about it. You are not going to like the whining regardless.

If that person KNEW they weren't going to be stuck in a match with the map they hate most, I think there'd be a lot of patience garnered.

Quote

It is more work. Once you add more limits/constraints to a system, it becomes more complicated and worse. The fewer the filters, the better the results in terms of the ETA to getting a game, but not the QUALITY of the game.

Again Deathlike, arguing that the poor pitiful MM is going to have to strain its iddybiddy bwain more ain't gonna be an argument you really should use.

I don't give a flying **** about MM, period.

I believe it has caused MORE issues than it has ever resolved.

Karl, the guy who actually works on MM has already admitted that MM ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT:

Ensure balanced matches
Keep new players from being matched against experienced players

Not 100% of the time, and impressions are it's less than even 50%.

Seriously, it's time to let go of it and move on to something else. Something else that allows players more control of their gaming experience.

Quote

If no filters existed, the speed of the MM would be like the days before the first iteration of the MM (weight matching only) would be stupidly fast.

You and I remember those days differently. It wasn't stupidly fast, though absolutely the average time to get a match was never more than a minute, it could still take a bit of time depending on how many people were available.

Quote

Because... those matches are actually harder to fill.. even at peak times. This is a sad commentary of reality.

Not my problem and again, just proves how unnecessary MM really is as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

Technically no, but also technically yes.

The part of it that is no is that you can create matches however you want the way you like it, but on the other hand these are not private matches....

The yes part is that it has a lot more to do with the NPE or just the new player population. Back when we actually have no Elo MM, it was actually "whose constructed team is better than the others". It would just be over before it started when you had a decent 4-man going vs whatever the opfor had in 8v8. You'd drive people out faster and it's most notably obvious in CW play where coordinated groups would easily be superior to whatever they normally faced against. So, it's needed or we'd be driving significantly more people away..

Then let's get rid of MM altogether and move on to something else. I'm tired of the fact that MM is so incredibad being the excuse I can't control my gaming experience, and just because YOU want a faster match selection doesn't mean I and EVERYONE ELSE should be forced to play on a map we can't stand.

Keep in mind they didn't turn off map selection before MM came out, and as I recall (and I admit to some potential misremembering here) game mode selection existed before and was not removed when MM was implemented.

We think that the additional options of user map selection might affect MM. We don't really know and I'd love to find out, I see the long term benefits to the game in allowing the user to control their gaming experience far outweighing any theoretical issues MM might have.

Quote

It's not just a one-step-simple-fix issue. You're breaking a lot more fundamental issues this game has ONLY for a personal benefit. This doesn't help the game whatsoever

You must be blinded by an infatuation with MM and elo. Seriously, just how many seriously successful games are there our there that actually FORCE players to play on certain maps without any player say on the matter?

I can't think of any. Maybe there are some out there, but I know for damn well certain for every ONE successful game that forces players into a blind drop mode like MWO does, there's hundreds IF NOT THOUSANDS of others where the player's preference is what decides what maps are played.

The benefit wouldn't just be 'personal' it would benefit EVERYONE who wants to select which maps they'd like to play and NOT be forced into playing somewhere they hate.

Otherwise PGI needs to allow us to just disco from maps, and redrop in our preferred 'mech from the previously dropped map. I see it happening all the time, people dropping from Caustic, Terra Therma, River City Night, etc., and never reconnecting and more than likely these people are doing so because they HATE these maps, or worse, have some sort of in-game issue with the map that causes their client to crash when it loads and have no choice...

No, the only people NOT allowing the option to select maps are the ones who currently don't care about what map they drop on, but that won't last, soon they'll develop a preference based on preferred mech builds or play style, and then THEY will want to be able to unselect map X from their rotations...

[Deathlike]

Dimento Graven, on 13 February 2015 - 11:01 PM, said:

If that person KNEW they weren't going to be stuck in a match with the map they hate most, I think there'd be a lot of patience garnered.

Again Deathlike, arguing that the poor pitiful MM is going to have to strain its iddybiddy bwain more ain't gonna be an argument you really should use.

I don't give a flying **** about MM, period.

I believe it has caused MORE issues than it has ever resolved.

Karl, the guy who actually works on MM has already admitted that MM ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT:

Ensure balanced matches
Keep new players from being matched against experienced players

Not 100% of the time, and impressions are it's less than even 50%.

Seriously, it's time to let go of it and move on to something else. Something else that allows players more control of their gaming experience.

I can honestly say it has never been perfect, and it'll never likely be perfect ever.

But, that doesn't mean zero attempts should be made. The MM will affect everyone regardless of how you or I feel about it. The question is if you care other people suffer. I kinda do care, but clearly you don't give a poop.

So, we are at an impasse here.

Quote

You and I remember those days differently. It wasn't stupidly fast, though absolutely the average time to get a match was never more than a minute, it could still take a bit of time depending on how many people were available.

Not my problem and again, just proves how unnecessary MM really is as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't care about growing your own unit or anything of that sort because they are dropped in with sharks... then OK. Let the game be stagnant or worse. See how anyone cares.

I'm not saying either that we handhold them forever... but there's a point where a players either learn to get better (trial by fire)... or they are uninterested in continuing said punishment. The current state of the game tends to reinforce the latter.

Quote

Then let's get rid of MM altogether and move on to something else. I'm tired of the fact that MM is so incredibad being the excuse I can't control my gaming experience, and just because YOU want a faster match selection doesn't mean I and EVERYONE ELSE should be forced to play on a map we can't stand.

TBH, I don't care about it being FASTER and that's not even MY preference (you're sticking words in my mouth there).

Even the general population with the Lords or just regular people don't like their wait times set for "a long time". There's a natural understanding that as you get better... the waits are longer. How long that wait happens to be is another matter. There should be "some balance", but some things will suffer and not everyone will take it the same way. Don't think what you think is reasonable is the same as someone else's.

Quote

Keep in mind they didn't turn off map selection before MM came out, and as I recall (and I admit to some potential misremembering here) game mode selection existed before and was not removed when MM was implemented.

Map selection was never an option. It's only available in private matches from when it was added. That's all.

Quote

We think that the additional options of user map selection might affect MM. We don't really know and I'd love to find out, I see the long term benefits to the game in allowing the user to control their gaming experience far outweighing any theoretical issues MM might have.

This is not an IF unfortunately.

When I group up with people that I believe have some real skill, the wait for a match is almost always at its limit (4 min match wait max) and inevitable most times the teams are imbalanced and someone gets the end of the stick. It happens. Frankly, I just deal with it. Not everyone can on the other hand.

Quote

You must be blinded by an infatuation with MM and elo. Seriously, just how many seriously successful games are there our there that actually FORCE players to play on certain maps without any player say on the matter?

As much as I talk about it, I don't care for either. I just accept it for what it is. So, if you like to make assumptions on what I think, please stop.

Quote

I can't think of any. Maybe there are some out there, but I know for damn well certain for every ONE successful game that forces players into a blind drop mode like MWO does, there's hundreds IF NOT THOUSANDS of others where the player's preference is what decides what maps are played.

The benefit wouldn't just be 'personal' it would benefit EVERYONE who wants to select which maps they'd like to play and NOT be forced into playing somewhere they hate.

Otherwise PGI needs to allow us to just disco from maps, and redrop in our preferred 'mech from the previously dropped map. I see it happening all the time, people dropping from Caustic, Terra Therma, River City Night, etc., and never reconnecting and more than likely these people are doing so because they HATE these maps, or worse, have some sort of in-game issue with the map that causes their client to crash when it loads and have no choice...

No, the only people NOT allowing the option to select maps are the ones who currently don't care about what map they drop on, but that won't last, soon they'll develop a preference based on preferred mech builds or play style, and then THEY will want to be able to unselect map X from their rotations...

Let me suggest this.

What if you had control over your map selection (there's a limit of maps you can disable from the rotation), BUT you give up control of the game mode? It would be map selection or mode selection... but NOT both.

So let's say you hate Terra Therma... fine, you can remove that (and a few other maps... whether it be Alpine, Tourmaline or Bog). However, you are forced to play Conquest, Assault, AND Skirmish. Would that be an amenable tradeoff?

The thing is, the idea that someone would say "play only skrimish" and also "play only short/long range maps" would cause a wait time for effectively "forever" with the existing constraints. I don't think PGI would let up on the already existing constraints (3/3/3/3 group construction with "best effort" attempts via Elo).

I honestly hate people that ragequit maps.. and I don't have anything against wanting a certain level of map selection. HOWEVER, you can't just eliminate yourself from a large pool (the less options you select, the less desirable for the MM to match you up) so you have to give something to get something. If that tradeoff has to be mode selection, then you shouldn't be able to whine about it if that means your most hated map(s) is out of the rotation while you may hate Conquest.

I guess, the best way of saying is... I have no issue that you want to lesser of two evils (hated maps vs hated modes)... but you can't "unselect" everything and then whine about the results.

Edited by Deathlike, 13 February 2015 - 11:45 PM.

[Ratpoison]

Screw the matchmaking balance all to hell with map tuned meta stacking and limited numbers, extending queue times to staggering amounts in the process? Yeah I can't see how that could possibly go wrong.

[Tarogato]

Place your votes for most disliked map here: http://mwomercs.com/...maker-to-avoid/

At some point, I'll be sure to send this off to the map designer to look at, or at the very least, Russ. But until then, more votes!

[norus]

Dimento Graven, on 13 February 2015 - 10:18 PM, said:

Lots of other people hate Caustic Valley, but it's one of my favorite maps.

Want to start a caustic fan club? That map's pretty sweet and one of my favorites too (provided you have ecm or radar dep to give LRM boats the finger).

[ThrashInc]

It wouldn't take any longer to find matches because most people will click off 95% of the maps.

The remaining people who are trying to play Caustic and Alpine will suffer, sure, but who cares about them lol.

[MauttyKoray]

Dimento Graven, on 13 February 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

I love the game but there are some maps I just do not care for, either because I just never seem to do well on them, or, due to the horrific geometry issues that plague them, ie: Viridian Bog, HPG Relay.

All I'm saying is, you're not forcing game modes down our throats, the group leader can select which modes the group is willing to play, so why can't we have the same functionality for maps?

I want to continue loving the game but over two years of putting up with various frustrations with no sure way to avoid them other than NOT PLAY seems rather short sighted on PGI's part.

Seriously guys, just how hard can it be to add a map option and have checkboxes that can be selected/unselected for a more desired map rotation?

The nice thing about such a feature too is you'd very quickly have some statistics that would let you know which maps are bad and/or stale and need work.

No, would break queue. Its already limited by having to use game mode options. Limiting maps would literally screw it over, some maps would be as bad as the original CW queue times.

[Dimento Graven]

Deathlike, on 13 February 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

I can honestly say it has never been perfect, and it'll never likely be perfect ever.

But, that doesn't mean zero attempts should be made. The MM will affect everyone regardless of how you or I feel about it. The question is if you care other people suffer. I kinda do care, but clearly you don't give a poop.

So, we are at an impasse here.

Woah, woah, WOAH! Hold it right there buster.

You think MM is some how making things better for people, even in spite of the fact that EVERY player has to suffer maps that they absolutely hate. If they regularly drop from matches on that map, it counts against them could even get them sanctioned by PGI, so again, they are FORCED to play on maps they can't stand. They are further penalized by losing access to their 'mech for upwards of 15 minutes if they drop from the match, further adding to the frustrations.

I'm saying we need to remove that frustration for ALL players, even you, and you think I don't 'give a poop'...

Rather arrogantly presumptuous on your part.

Quote

If you don't care about growing your own unit or anything of that sort because they are dropped in with sharks... then OK. Let the game be stagnant or worse. See how anyone cares.

I'm not saying either that we handhold them forever... but there's a point where a players either learn to get better (trial by fire)... or they are uninterested in continuing said punishment. The current state of the game tends to reinforce the latter.

When I am REGULARLY being dropped into groups with scrubs and noobs, by the MM as a "last ditch effort" to find me a group after a wait of more than 3 minutes, as far as I'm concerned MM ain't doin' diddly. From the absolute MULTITUDES of posts on these forums I know that my experience is shared, both by the noobs and scrubs getting regularly pasted by elites MM sticks them in with, and by the elites who end up having to carry for noobs and scrubs...

Seriously, using MM as an excuse for anything is pointless, for the most part the community perceives it as NOT doing its job.

What's more, PGI themselves stated that the problem of ROFLSTOMPS was only being experienced in 10% of the matches, the ONLY f'ing reason the MM was foisted upon this game with its population too low to properly support an elo based MM was because of IGP, and their stupidity. They went through all this BS, years now of tweaks, changes, "fixes", adjustments, so and so forth, to address a problem that originally only occurred in 10% of all matches.

It has been MORE TROUBLE than it is worth, scrap it and move on, and stop using it as an excuse to avoid allowing users more control of their gaming experience.

Quote

TBH, I don't care about it being FASTER and that's not even MY preference (you're sticking words in my mouth there).

You were the one that stated 'longer times finding' matches as a supposed reason to NOT include player map options.

Quote

Even the general population with the Lords or just regular people don't like their wait times set for "a long time". There's a natural understanding that as you get better... the waits are longer. How long that wait happens to be is another matter. There should be "some balance", but some things will suffer and not everyone will take it the same way. Don't think what you think is reasonable is the same as someone else's.

Any particular unit in this game is less than 1% the total population, so I dunno why you're trying to drop any unit names here. Regardless of the 'understandings', simply eliminate the elo portion of the filter and substitute player map preferences, and that, along with a true solo queue, and then the group queue being separate, along with the 'soft' class limitations already in place, I'll bet MM will actually end up better off, not worse.

Again, elo is the constraint that seems to absorb most of the calculation and as that's one of the first constraints to be 'loosened' as time progresses in finding a match, OBVIOUSLY it's of the LEAST importance.

We just need to replace a crappy filter with one slightly more useful to the entire community, one that would eliminate a near CONSTANT frustration with an occasional one.

Quote

Map selection was never an option. It's only available in private matches from when it was added. That's all.

Yes, my point being that map selection wasn't something they had to consciously think about when MM was created (even though we'd up to that point long had promises of means of controlling what maps we played on), so again using its combination with MM as an excuse NOW to not do it is pre-supposing something no one actually knows.

Quote

This is not an IF unfortunately.

When I group up with people that I believe have some real skill, the wait for a match is almost always at its limit (4 min match wait max) and inevitable most times the teams are imbalanced and someone gets the end of the stick. It happens. Frankly, I just deal with it. Not everyone can on the other hand.

Great so you're worried that something that happens NOW will continue to happen AFTER we implement map selection?!?!

With map selection, at least the people on the short end wouldn't have to suffer through receiving that end on a map they absolutely hate.

Quote

As much as I talk about it, I don't care for either. I just accept it for what it is. So, if you like to make assumptions on what I think, please stop.

You're the one defending MM as if it were your baby.

Sorry to tell you this, but, your baby is ugly.

Quote

Let me suggest this.

What if you had control over your map selection (there's a limit of maps you can disable from the rotation), BUT you give up control of the game mode? It would be map selection or mode selection... but NOT both.

So let's say you hate Terra Therma... fine, you can remove that (and a few other maps... whether it be Alpine, Tourmaline or Bog). However, you are forced to play Conquest, Assault, AND Skirmish. Would that be an amenable tradeoff?

The thing is, the idea that someone would say "play only skirmish" and also "play only short/long range maps" would cause a wait time for effectively "forever" with the existing constraints. I don't think PGI would let up on the already existing constraints (3/3/3/3 group construction with "best effort" attempts via Elo).

I honestly hate people that ragequit maps.. and I don't have anything against wanting a certain level of map selection. HOWEVER, you can't just eliminate yourself from a large pool (the less options you select, the less desirable for the MM to match you up) so you have to give something to get something. If that tradeoff has to be mode selection, then you shouldn't be able to whine about it if that means your most hated map(s) is out of the rotation while you may hate Conquest.

I guess, the best way of saying is... I have no issue that you want to lesser of two evils (hated maps vs hated modes)... but you can't "unselect" everything and then whine about the results.

Your suggestion was actually tried to some degree before.

What did we learn from that very, extremely short stint?

Players want control over their gaming experience.

We don't want to give up control over things we have, historically in almost every other game ever created, had some control over:

What we pilot/what kind of character we play.
Where we pilot it/where we fight.
Match mode.

Over and above the history of it, the logic of your proposal falls flat due to how the current MM works and the "softness" of the current filters.

We could still maintain the "softness" of elo and the class constraint based on time, ie: the longer it takes the less 'strict' MM is in enforcing it.

It's why noobs can get stuck in match against a team of vets who are piloting 6 assault 'mechs. The MM currently softens/eliminates the filters based on length of wait already.

So, we COULD have the same filter constraints of game mode and add map selection, and STILL leave in the same soft elo and class restrictions and the only thing that might change is more people waiting the maximum amount of time before being dropped into an unbalanced match.

Something is already happening more consistently for everyone anyway.

I'm sure there'll be enough people who keep every game mode and every (or nearly every) map selected to ensure very small impact.

The only maps I'd de-select from my personal rotations are Viridian Bog and HPG Manifold, and maybe any other map that MM dropped me into 15 times in a row (something that currently happens NOW anyway, read the forums, but I'd eventually reselect it). That'd be only 2 or 3 maps at a time.

Would some people only have ONE or TWO maps selected? Sure, but those people would be the ones to suffer extraordinary amounts of bizarrely balanced matches. Those of us who would keep a majority of maps selected wouldn't notice much difference.

If people started regularly getting "no match found" they could simply add a game mode, or another few maps they don't hate quite so much...

The experience is controlled by the user in my scenario, and would allow ALL of us to avoid frustrations.

It's a running joke with a lot of the people I play with, we get roflstomped after a 4+ minute wait for a match and someone will almost always say, "Yeah it could have been worse, we could have been on [your most hated map here]!"

Edited by Dimento Graven, 14 February 2015 - 10:19 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

norus, on 13 February 2015 - 11:51 PM, said:

Want to start a caustic fan club? That map's pretty sweet and one of my favorites too (provided you have ecm or radar dep to give LRM boats the finger).

Since I can either snipe or brawl with my typical build, it's usually prudent to find an appropriate vantage point to determine what the enemy has brought. Only a few missile boats? Time to close in a bit... Many missile boats? Stay back and snipe some until they're thinned out a bit.

[Dimento Graven]

GundamStompyRobotChurchy, on 13 February 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:

It wouldn't take any longer to find matches because most people will click off 95% of the maps.

The remaining people who are trying to play Caustic and Alpine will suffer, sure, but who cares about them lol.

Again, I don't think it would be quite that extreme for most of us, especially those of us who have been playing a long while.

I think most of us would only de-select 2 or 3 maps. I'm sure that River City Night would see a lot less people, and for sure Terra Therma as most people don't like having to consciously think about heat management so much, nor do they appreciate the pug grinder in the middle (I don't mind TT, I mind the idiots that play 'dancing fairy princes' at the top of the ramps or at the end of the bridges. IN or OUT. If you're not going in GET THE F AWAY FROM THE MIDDLE, if you ARE going in, GET YOUR FAT ASS IN THERE ALREADY!!!).

BUT, that sort of thing happening would provide the exact kind of information PGI needs to understand the community's preferences for maps. Giving them the information on what the general population believes is a "good map" may allow them to more readily build more of the same.

In the end since the ONLY filter that is currently a "hard" filter is the game mode, and all the rest are "soft" to the point of being completely eliminated as time to find a match progresses, I don't see the end result of adding a "hard" map selection filter as a problem either.

[Dimento Graven]

MauttyKoray, on 14 February 2015 - 12:28 AM, said:

No, would break queue. Its already limited by having to use game mode options. Limiting maps would literally screw it over, some maps would be as bad as the original CW queue times.

No, I don't think it would. It would only "screw it over" for the few people who had only one or two maps selected.

For the vast majority who would only de-select the few maps they can't just can't stand, I don't think they'll notice much difference.

Another extra 30 second wait time before MM decides you've waited long enough to eliminate elo and class limits and toss you in the first available map in your rotation list and first available mode in your game mode list?

And that's different from now, how? Oh yeah, NOW, you can get tossed into an imbalanced match on a map you f'ing hate so much that if it weren't against PCoC, you'd disconnect from the match and try again...

[Bishop Steiner]

Dimento Graven, on 13 February 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:

I love the game but there are some maps I just do not care for, either because I just never seem to do well on them, or, due to the horrific geometry issues that plague them, ie: Viridian Bog, HPG Relay.

All I'm saying is, you're not forcing game modes down our throats, the group leader can select which modes the group is willing to play, so why can't we have the same functionality for maps?

I want to continue loving the game but over two years of putting up with various frustrations with no sure way to avoid them other than NOT PLAY seems rather short sighted on PGI's part.

Seriously guys, just how hard can it be to add a map option and have checkboxes that can be selected/unselected for a more desired map rotation?

The nice thing about such a feature too is you'd very quickly have some statistics that would let you know which maps are bad and/or stale and need work.

and you would also simply have Teams, especially comp teams "map-camping" on the most "favorable" map. That would be grand for game play and balance.