251 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

I want 8v8, with close games that actually make the game playable, over 2-12 stomps in either direction.

I would rather lose 1000 games 7-8, over winning 1000 12-0.....while I like winning, no matter the score, it is no fun when I log into the battle, run around a little, fire a litte and it ends, or when we lose and I run around a little and fire and die....

I like to actually, you know, Play the game when im playing the game? I like to get into the mix, fire, kill, take and deal damage, actualyly feel as though ive had some impact in the game.....right now, some of my wins have been me just being there and being on the side that happened to get the high amount of better players......

Part of why MWO has never been fun to me, and why ive only played like 130 games to date....Of those games, only like 10 have been true fun....unlike all the battles I used to play wiht my dad in Men of War Multiplayer, even the losses were a gob of fun....immersive, engrossing, deep game play where your choices and setup do matter...where brains are required.....yes, that game is fun.


As for map choosing? I vote no to that. It will simply make the game like BAttlefield 3, where of the 30-40 some maps they have, only like 3 are played........it would turn into only LRM boats on Caustic and Alpine Only Bralwer builds on River city, ONly lights running around on River city or any other enclosed map....mode choosing is fine, but map choosing? I vote emphatically NO on that one...

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 20 March 2015 - 01:47 PM.

[Gyrok]

I would prefer it if it would tell us in a lobby before we drop what map we were getting. Power of selection would be great...but I could deal with it if it was just a "this is the map you have 75 seconds to pick a mech.

[terrycloth]

You'd probably have to stick within your weight class for 3/3/3/3, but yeah, that would be interesting. Modules kind of ruin it, though, since 75 seconds isn't enough time to swap them over.

[divinedisclaimer]

This game has been managed so poorly I quit and now I play the Elder Scrolls Online.

[Dimento Graven]

Gyrok, on 20 March 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

I would prefer it if it would tell us in a lobby before we drop what map we were getting. Power of selection would be great...but I could deal with it if it was just a "this is the map you have 75 seconds to pick a mech.

I typically take one type of 'mech and while this wouldn't affect me much, I do believe it would alleviate a lot of the frustration some of the people I play with, who end up stuck using 'mech not suited for a map that was randomly thrust upon them.

[Tasker]

Yes. Please let me never have to suffer through Alpine Peaks or smear filter Forest Colony ever again. Thank.

[ChapeL]

How hard would it be for the matchmaker to form two teams of 12 and then ask: Ladies and gentlemen these are your teams now choose between these maps x,y,z. You have 10 seconds to vote.

[Tasker]

ChapeL, on 20 March 2015 - 02:16 PM, said:

How hard would it be for the matchmaker to form two teams of 12 and then ask: Ladies and gentlemen these are your teams now choose between these maps x,y,z. You have 10 seconds to vote.

*watches every gauss dire / jager / crab / etc. mash Terra Therma*

[Ozric]

I was all for this idea first time around, and I still am. Fairer matches are always better.


This is not a question about breaking the solo queue with groups again.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Dimento Graven, on 20 March 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

I typically take one type of 'mech and while this wouldn't affect me much, I do believe it would alleviate a lot of the frustration some of the people I play with, who end up stuck using 'mech not suited for a map that was randomly thrust upon them.

Gyrok, on 20 March 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

I would prefer it if it would tell us in a lobby before we drop what map we were getting. Power of selection would be great...but I could deal with it if it was just a "this is the map you have 75 seconds to pick a mech.

That is part of the randomness. Its not supposed to be magically conveinent like a movie....always get the right map and right situation for the right mech every time.....and in that regard, I like the random map, unable to select it. Its supposed to be so you dont always get the perfect conditions for your build. Yeah, it sucks taking a 4x PPC WHK into Mordor, but I have made it work, and oddly enough, those have been some of my higher scoring games, one I remember being in excess of 600 damage. Had one just the other day, 2 kills and 450dmg or so on Mordor with that very build.

It would get boring after awhile as well....when you see Alpine, everyone swaps to thier missiles boats and guass tubs. Oh, River city? Grab ur Hunchies and streak crows, lets get brawlin....or on Mordor, you magically get out your cannon ships....

JUst no on being able to select our own map in any way, or being able to make our selves perfect for the map....

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 20 March 2015 - 02:53 PM.

[Gyrok]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 02:53 PM, said:

That is part of the randomness. Its not supposed to be magically conveinent like a movie....always get the right map and right situation for the right mech every time.....and in that regard, I like the random map, unable to select it. Its supposed to be so you dont always get the perfect conditions for your build. Yeah, it sucks taking a 4x PPC WHK into Mordor, but I have made it work, and oddly enough, those have been some of my higher scoring games, one I remember being in excess of 600 damage. Had one just the other day, 2 kills and 450dmg or so on Mordor with that very build.

It would get boring after awhile as well....when you see Alpine, everyone swaps to thier missiles boats and guass tubs. Oh, River city? Grab ur Hunchies and streak crows, lets get brawlin....or on Mordor, you magically get out your cannon ships....

JUst no on being able to select our own map in any way, or being able to make our selves perfect for the map....

It is less about "making it work" and more about the fact that, before you drop on a world, you know whether it is hot or not...mostly jungle or desert, and that sort of thing. Really simple stuff that any half wit military leader at even a NCO level would want to know up front before even doing anything else.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Gyrok, on 20 March 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

It is less about "making it work" and more about the fact that, before you drop on a world, you know whether it is hot or not...mostly jungle or desert, and that sort of thing. Really simple stuff that any half wit military leader at even a NCO level would want to know up front before even doing anything else.

And in that regard, yes, it all makes sense.

BUt still, being able to know our map then choose our mechs would result in even more meta bullshit then we already have....

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 20 March 2015 - 06:20 PM.

[Trashhead]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 01:45 PM, said:

I want 8v8, with close games that actually make the game playable, over 2-12 stomps in either direction.

I would rather lose 1000 games 7-8, over winning 1000 12-0.....while I like winning, no matter the score, it is no fun when I log into the battle, run around a little, fire a litte and it ends, or when we lose and I run around a little and fire and die....

I like to actually, you know, Play the game when im playing the game? I like to get into the mix, fire, kill, take and deal damage, actualyly feel as though ive had some impact in the game.....right now, some of my wins have been me just being there and being on the side that happened to get the high amount of better players......

Part of why MWO has never been fun to me, and why ive only played like 130 games to date....Of those games, only like 10 have been true fun....unlike all the battles I used to play wiht my dad in Men of War Multiplayer, even the losses were a gob of fun....immersive, engrossing, deep game play where your choices and setup do matter...where brains are required.....yes, that game is fun.


As for map choosing? I vote no to that. It will simply make the game like BAttlefield 3, where of the 30-40 some maps they have, only like 3 are played........it would turn into only LRM boats on Caustic and Alpine Only Bralwer builds on River city, ONly lights running around on River city or any other enclosed map....mode choosing is fine, but map choosing? I vote emphatically NO on that one...

^ This. Nuff said.

[Sonny Black]

FYI

[Johnny Z]

um

Edited by Johnny Z, 14 August 2015 - 12:39 PM.

[Yellonet]

I would like "full choices of Mode and Maps at the Expense of Less Competitive Matches".

[Throat Punch]

More competitive matches. I'd rather see the same map over and over and have games that end in 10-12 or 11-12 instead of 2-12 steamrolls.

[Chemie]

servers have split the queue up so it makes sense to rain things back. Remove map choice is fine by me. Too many constraints on MM is bad.

[M4rtyr]

Zeece, on 20 February 2015 - 07:51 AM, said:

Russ Asked me to Pose this Questions to the Community during last nights Townhall so that he could get honest and open feedback from y'all on it.

To give context to his question.

Do you want full choices of Mode and Maps at the Expense of Less Competitive Matches (because every choice shrinks the size of the pool of players that the Matchmaker can choose opponents from which means it will have to expand the ELO range to fill a match)

or

Do you want the most Competitive(closet ELO) Matches but at the cost that you can no longer choose maps or modes?

Reference: Current Solo Queue ELO difference 38... Current Group Queue ELO difference 183

This is a VERY overly simplified question...

First of all puging is never going to be competitive, the matchmaker isn't good enough, the population isn't big enough and the lack of BV on mechs/equipment means that you'll never have good tight matches aside from pure luck of the draw. ELO is not good enough for that in this game.

That being said allowing the limit of maps/modes I don't like. For one THERE ISN'T ENOUGH OF EITHER IN THE FIRST PLACE. But beyond that it just allows people to make map specific builds instead of having all rounders (which a good al' rounder now is lazervomit).

It's pretty silly to ask this question in my opinion.. neither is an effective option with out other considerations first.

Edited by M4rtyr, 14 August 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Telmasa, on 20 March 2015 - 01:39 PM, said:

I vote bring back 8 v 8. The game was alot more fun that way, especially with maps designed specifically for 8v8 and *not* 12v12.

This.