11 replies to this topic

[Makenzie71]

I've mentioned it a few times but never pursued it much, but the last few days I've seen it requested a few times elsewhere, and searching I found it requested numerous times by others in the past...so here we are.

EDIT: This part previously provided what I would personally gain from this feature, but it has been removed because some people took it to mean that it was the only thing that could be gained.

What I propose is that you may opt out of one map.
When selecting the map it will ask that you confirm it like loadout changes.

When you opt out of a map you will be prompted for a reason (personal preference, performance, other). What I would like to see is if a particular map receives a large number of performance related opt outs then PGI will know there's something buggy going on.

Once you opt out of this map it is locked. The preference will remain until you change it, but you will not be able to make changes for a predetermined amount of time. I suggest 48 hours.

As it stands I feel that the only map that will have a longer wait time for the matchmaker will be Terra Therma since the recent trend of superlaserboaters doesn't work well there.

Please, I would love to hear any feedback concerning this.

Edited by Makenzie71, 26 October 2015 - 06:23 AM.

[Night Thastus]

Nope. It would just increase match making time. No thanks. Already difficult to get a match as it is.

If you're having issues with FPS, then just freaking run the repair tool, update your drivers, update your OS, clean the dust and crap out of your PC, stop any applications running in the background, make sure you have enough disk space, increase ram to 4-8GB at least if not already, run MWO on the lowest settings and whatever else you need to do.

My computer is a potato. But I can get 60FPS solid if I take care of my computer properly and suck it up with the lowest settings. Sure, I'd love to see a spinning PPC trail. But if my comp can't handle it, oh well.

If you need me, or someone else to walk you through the entire process of checking absolutely everything for FPS-enhancement, so be it. But I'll not have your "It's impossible for me to get good FPS on X map" nonsense. Just not true. You haven't tried hard enough.

[Makenzie71]

Night Thastus, on 26 October 2015 - 05:50 AM, said:

If you're having issues with FPS, then just freaking...

If only it were so easy.

Also, not having an FPS problem. I have a map problem.

Lastly, I didn't ask your advice on my problem. Everything beyond your first sentence is irrelevant.

[Night Thastus]

Makenzie71, on 26 October 2015 - 05:54 AM, said:

If only it were so easy.

Also, not having an FPS problem. I have a map problem.

Lastly, I didn't ask your advice on my problem. Everything beyond your first sentence is irrelevant.

Your original post (which is edited now) said that you wanted to remove Frozen City as you were having FPS issues on that map, were only getting 12FPS and couldn't play on it. You even said "If enough people opt-out of it, PGI will have to fix it".

If the FPS issue isn't the core of your argument, then there's nothing there to argue about. None of us want longer queue times. PGI doesn't have the time, the resources, or the want to implement a feature like this. If you don't like a map, get better at it until you enjoy it.

If they somehow did, having a bunch of opt-outs wouldn't suddenly force their hand and get them to release a better version of it. That's not how development works. At best it would just make them lower that map in the rotation. Which would just mean people who do like that map get punished.

So no.

[Makenzie71]

Night Thastus, on 26 October 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

Your original post (which is edited now) said that you wanted to remove Frozen City as you were having FPS issues on that map, were only getting 12FPS and couldn't play on it.

I edited because you can't accept other people might have different issues. I made a suggestion that encompassed all players, you tried to twist into it being only about me.

Quote

So no.

Got it.

[Darwins Dog]

More options means longer waits for matches and more unbalanced games (release valves activate more often). If the game had a larger player base, then it would be no problem. As it stands there are already too many options (group size, tonnage/weight class, server, and game mode).

You will also start to run into people that specialize for one map, or one type of map. They would run energy boats with very few DHS on cold maps or ballistic boats only on hot maps. This already happened way back in beta when someone figured out that you could delete map files and never play them (this exploit has since been fixed).

I would like to see a feedback mechanism in the game that could alert PGI as to which maps need work. For now we have the forums for whatever that's worth.

I could also see a downvote system like they briefly had for game mode. You could un-check the box for a game mode which was the equivalent of saying "I prefer not to play that mode." The MM would try to find a match without that mode, but would put you into it if it gave a better match. At the end of the day, I'd rather keep things as is. MM has enough trouble as it is without adding another variable to the mix.

[Makenzie71]

Darwins Dog, on 26 October 2015 - 08:41 AM, said:

You will also start to run into people that specialize for one map, or one type of map. They would run energy boats with very few DHS on cold maps or ballistic boats only on hot maps. This already happened way back in beta when someone figured out that you could delete map files and never play them (this exploit has since been fixed).

You make very good points, but I do want to address this one...I don't think being able to opt out of one map will allow specialization since almost all of the maps have overlapping qualities. I think the best you would get (and likely the one that would be skipped most) would be Terra Therma..but Terra is not that much hotter than Tourmaline or Caustic (I think people would actually skip it more for the volcano than the heat).

[Tesunie]

As previously mentioned, it would increase match making times. It would add in an additional constraint on the match maker to remove a map (probably Terra Therma for preference or the high heat not working with their mech, or Alpine Heights due to it's large map size and long open areas for their brawling mechs). This would make waiting times even longer than they are now, and some people already complain about how long it takes to find a match.

Remember now, we have people that can't wait 30 seconds before the match starts (unless everyone readied up to bypass) so the timer had to be moved to 10 seconds once everyone has fully loaded into the match...

[Omi_]

I like the idea of a map veto, and no this wouldn't increase waiting times in the queue.

There is no reason why the matchmaker needs a preconceived map upon which to build teams. Establish the teams, then pick a map using the same vote metric that PGI spoke about for game mode selection in the past.

On this note, I would like to see PGI go ahead with their mode selection system that they proposed way back, which I actually expect they're going to announce at tomorrow's town hall (apparently, new game modes are on the menu).

[Tesunie]

Hornsby, on 26 October 2015 - 04:10 PM, said:

I like the idea of a map veto, and no this wouldn't increase waiting times in the queue.

There is no reason why the matchmaker needs a preconceived map upon which to build teams. Establish the teams, then pick a map using the same vote metric that PGI spoke about for game mode selection in the past.

On this note, I would like to see PGI go ahead with their mode selection system that they proposed way back, which I actually expect they're going to announce at tomorrow's town hall (apparently, new game modes are on the menu).

Why wouldn't it slow down search times?

Each server (from my understanding) plays a map. When that server clears up from one match, it queues itself to find a group for the next match on that map/server*. If you had people start opting out of maps, then it would decrease that server's chance of building a group, which means players that it has grabbed for the next match on that server/map would become harder. This means it takes more time to find a match, which means that those players it has grabbed to match up now has to wait longer as the match maker needs to wait to expand it's search requirements.

So, from your standpoint/knowledge, why would a map restriction not make wait times longer? I'm curious on how you think the system finds players and creates matches. (And because I could be mistaken.)


Edit: Grammar.

* This is also why, sometimes, when you play match after match back to back in quick succession (if you stick around for the match to fully end), you can land on the same map several times in a row. It's because the server you just finished on is looking for a new group of players to set up it's match. Or, as I said, from my last understanding.

Edited by Tesunie, 26 October 2015 - 05:36 PM.

[Makenzie71]

I don't think that's how the maps work...or else, if the Bog, for example, were on the European server I could opt out of it by simply not playing on that server.

[Tesunie]

Makenzie71, on 26 October 2015 - 09:44 PM, said:

I don't think that's how the maps work...or else, if the Bog, for example, were on the European server I could opt out of it by simply not playing on that server.

Server, as in one piece of the host. Not server, as in the entire processing unit that hosts the entire game.

A server is a group of computers working together to process data, and tends to be a hub of data processing requests. Consider it as one "computer" on the server hosts a map, and several of these computers host the entire game within the server network.


The European sever is a server hub. It is built by several server host computers. The confusing issue here is, one computer hosting a map is called a server, as well as the entire server hub is also called a sever...
Like, moose is the term for a single moose, and moose is also the term for more than one moose.