251 replies to this topic

[nehebkau]

NO!

Here is what you will end up with:
Players playing only high-heat mechs choosing frozen city
Players with uber range only playing alpine peaks
Etc. etc. etc.

In short, you will end up with people crafting their mechs for a specific map and only playing on that map with that mech. It would be just another META entering the game and that just sucks the life and fun out of things. While the randomness may suck, it is a mechanism to balance out the game-play whereas player choice is always going to be geared towards "Easiest for me".

I can understand allowing a player to maybe opt out of one map -- maybe two -- that could be a metric PGI could use for determining if a map isn't meeting the needs of its players. Giving the players the choice to drop on only 1 map is just a bad idea that our player-base will turn into a bunch of festering, puss-filled donkey-scrotum.

Yes there are some maps i loathe but having to account for those maps in my builds is important to the game, in general.

Edited by nehebkau, 17 August 2015 - 02:11 PM.

[Naduk]

i prefer quality of games vs choice of location
in games of old, players often did not have a choice as to what map is played and even more common there was only one game mode and people loved them

if players do not have a choice this it does not matter, if we never had the choice to select our game mode from day one few would of even noticed

this also has bigger benefits as the total player pool is involved in all game modes
thus feed back on game mode quality is bigger
also much faster que times and more

players should not have a choice in systems that negatively impact the experience of others
if 1 player out of 24 wants to play conquest and the other 23 only ever want to play skirmish the one player will never be satisfied or worst case scenario never even find a match

guild wars 2 solves this problem by having your map/match selection be a vote and then the votes are tallied/weighted and then the selection is still random

as you can see here 3 maps have been voted in by players about to begin the next match

this method would suit perfectly for MWO especially if what is happening is presented well

Edited by Naduk, 17 August 2015 - 02:31 PM.

[Chados]

I like the randomized maps.,you never know what you'll get. Each map presents unique challenges, even Terra Therma. It's HPG Generator I hate, it's the most LRM-unfriendly map in the game. But when I drop a Catapult A1C and it comes up I know I need to think hard about placing myself for some direct, close support where I'm shooting in blindfire on the bleeding edge of min LRM range to be sure of a hit, and that I need to watch my SRM and SSRM magazines because 100 rounds per goes fast in a lot of close range duels with light mechs and mediums.

Nehebkau is right, this kind of choice will encourage players to build mechs for one environment only and then only play that environment. It'll Balkanize the player base, and it won't fit well with the new PSL system you all are implementing tomorrow. In Multiplayer Online Battletech back in old GEnie days 20 years ago, the environment was determined by the planet you were operating on. Move the Lance to one planet in the Rasalhague Military District, you'll have ice; another, a desert; a third, a jungle. It all depended on the planet being fought for vs. another House's forces and most all the matches were PvE anyway in lances of four being dropped into battle with four AI of varying skill levels. CW is similar, but you're going up against the top tier players there as the game is right now.

Edited by Chados, 17 August 2015 - 02:50 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

nehebkau, on 17 August 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

NO!

Here is what you will end up with:
Players playing only high-heat mechs choosing frozen city
Players with uber range only playing alpine peaks
Etc. etc. etc.

You say that like its a bad thing

[Baba Yogi]

El Bandito, on 20 February 2015 - 07:54 AM, said:

I want 8v8 back for Solo-Q, for better hit reg, better FPS, and better matchmaking reasons. Group-Q can retain 12v12.

That is all.

This!

Also i'd like to keep being able to play conquest matches. It does provide better fighting dynamic then straight deathmatch mode.

[Galenit]

nehebkau, on 17 August 2015 - 02:09 PM, said:

NO!

Here is what you will end up with:
Players playing only high-heat mechs choosing frozen city
Players with uber range only playing alpine peaks
Etc. etc. etc.

In short, you will end up with people crafting their mechs for a specific map and only playing on that map with that mech. It would be just another META entering the game and that just sucks the life and fun out of things. While the randomness may suck, it is a mechanism to balance out the game-play whereas player choice is always going to be geared towards "Easiest for me".

I can understand allowing a player to maybe opt out of one map -- maybe two -- that could be a metric PGI could use for determining if a map isn't meeting the needs of its players. Giving the players the choice to drop on only 1 map is just a bad idea that our player-base will turn into a bunch of festering, puss-filled donkey-scrotum.

Yes there are some maps i loathe but having to account for those maps in my builds is important to the game, in general.

Thats true for normal matches.

But for cw i would like if you could see the next map, if the scoutmission was a success.

Think about 10 attacks,
First and fifth is a scout map (coquest 4vs4, like going for 4 cappoints, 400 points to win, defender has to prevent this.), for every 100 points you get the next map revealed (if the scouts win, you know the next 4 maps, if they only get 100 points, you only will know the next map.).

But in normal random play, never.

Edited by Galenit, 18 August 2015 - 05:49 AM.

[Lugh]

Haipyng, on 20 February 2015 - 08:05 AM, said:

What we want is games that rack like skilled players on the same team and the opposing team.

Considering ELO is something originally used for competitor-versus-competitor games, it's use in team based play seems wrong or ill advised. Loss or win streaks on the order of many at a time are simply frustrating. ELO calculation would seem impossible when considering that practiced 8+ man groups are going to better coordinate than 4 three man groups that perform like PUGs.

The only fix I see is 4 man and below queue and a 5 man and above queue with opt in from smaller groups or singles. More choice is better. Take away choice and you will encourage players to drop at the beginning of a match they don't like.

Which should decrease their rating, so they can sink to the cess pool of tier 5 where selfish fools can play like rambo all day long...

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 17 August 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

You say that like its a bad thing

It is. If you don't know how to make your specialist mech work in situations that are not favorable to you, you aren't anywhere near as good as you think you are...

[Almond Brown]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 17 August 2015 - 02:50 PM, said:

You say that like its a bad thing

Only for those who don't want to see the "meta" be quickly boiled down to just 1, maybe 2 Maps...

[Gierling]

Get both, bring in Dedicated servers.

Then players can choose the experience they want to have.

Matchmakers will always elicit negativity.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lugh, on 18 August 2015 - 05:54 AM, said:

It is. If you don't know how to make your specialist mech work in situations that are not favorable to you, you aren't anywhere near as good as you think you are...

I play lrms pretty much exclusively. If anyone knows about making a mech work in areas where they arent favorable, its ANY lrm player because youre in a game where EVERYONE runs ECM - a 1.5 ton or less item that completely nullifies your weapon of choice.

I just think random map selection is stupid in a mechwarrior game because to me that means when we hit orbit, our navcomputers all explode, and our entry into atmo goes like this:



Followed by:



But with less children on board

And dropships are pretty expensive. I dont think them crashing every time we want to drop is a fiscally sound idea

[ToxinTractor]

I wouldnt mind grouping all the different modes into one big fat Q, so long though as the current modes/maps where tweaked a bit.

Kinda like with how forest colony and river city got those tweaks. But now edit cap point locations to put us in different situations. Because lets face it, as a mechwarrior we need to be able to adapt to a situation on the fly.

But in reality now. If the maps we fought on where more dynamic, I feel it would improve the game modes a lot.

(But maybe tweak domination a bit so its not "Hunt the last back capping locust/raven/etc.)

Edited by ToxinTractor, 18 August 2015 - 08:28 PM.

[Karamarka]

Rather good matches than choice, all 3 game modes are the same anyway.