57 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

This time, I'm going to just wait and try it out before raging in caps lock on the forums.

Maybe it'll be ok. I really do hate Conquest. Assault is ok. Skirmish is the least terrible gamemode.

Hopefully, most people will vote Skirmish or Assault.

[Darian DelFord]

Here's another question

Currently I have to wait approximately 3 minutes for a match in a light. Then another 80 seconds once in the map screen. Which this "voting system: add another 30 seconds to the total wait time... or will it be subtracted from the 80 seconds on the map screen?

[OznerpaG]

AntleredCormorant, on 31 October 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

Actually the point of Assault mode is to capture the enemy base. I know that's not how most people play it, and the blame for that is squarely on a scoring system that penalizes you for playing it as intended.

true, i guess i meant it's the way assault mostly plays out since the bases are generally defensible so it's usually a straight fight either way

same story for conquest whereby most games play out with the elimination of one team, except i personally cap until i'm sure we will get the win *just in case* our side gets smoked, and then i join in the fray for cleanup or i go on the run to wait out the resource win

conquest is kind of 'game-y' so i only play it when i have to level a light - however at least in conquest you can make decent cash with a cap win, assault not so much

Edited by JagdFlanker, 31 October 2015 - 08:40 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Map & Mode voting - watch how much Conquest and Terra Therma become unpopular. Maybe someone should start a poll for fun on that.
PS - What happens to someone who connects but does not vote due to going AFK for perhaps some Real Life issue?

[Nightmare1]

I don't mind the Game Mode. I play with all three enabled anyways and find Conquest to be the least monotonous.

That being said, I will miss playing Terra Therma. It's my favorite map in the game, but too few people can appreciate it and will choose not to vote for it. I'm willing to sacrifice that in favor of not getting the Bog or Forest Colony eight times in a row though.

[50 50]

I have to admit to being a little puzzled by this development.
While I can see that by removing the game mode weighting option from the match maker algorithm will remove another of the complexities it was having deal with, putting in a voting system based on random selection after the teams have formed seemed like a decision out of left field.

Personally, I believe the better option is to dispense with the match maker and simply provide a list of maps and modes organised by tier that players jump into.
There are many other features and advantages to players and to PGI to do it this way.

[Daelen Rottiger]

I swear I heard a chicken!!!

[50 50]

I can foresee two potential problems with the voting.

In the solo queue, no-one can agree on anything and you end up with a random map and mode anyway which just seems that it will be difficult to get a map and mode you might prefer.

In the group queue, the larger groups will likely have more voting power as they can discuss it before they jump in.
This may also allow larger groups to tailor their drops so they can then force a map and mode more suited to their loadouts.

It will be interesting to see the interface for it and see how it works out.

[Duke Nedo]

I always have all modes selected, waiting times are usually fine except for heavies and tbh most games play out approximately the same which ever game mode it happens to be.

[Xoco]

JagdFlanker, on 31 October 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

i can live with the voting IF i can select the mech i want to use after the choice is made (which i know won't happen)

While I don't particular care (My Locust is my first mech, and it will be my last), I think it makes sense for most people. While current games dont let you see the map before choosing the mech, at least you can control the mode.

[Vellron2005]

So, wait, let me get this straight.. We will be forced to play a game mode we don't wanna play, and play it on a map we don't wanna play on..

Yaaay... Great.

The map voting is ok, as I feel most people will vote for the few most popular maps, and the unpopular maps will be fazed out and force a rework..

But the MM random gamemode however... that's pure hogwash.. I understand the technical reasons behind it, but removing player choice for the sake of balance kinda reminds me of the Patriot Act, witch removed an individual's right to privacy for the sake of "enforced security"..

I disagree with this wholeheartedly..

If they wanna make it easier on the matchmaker, at least make us vote on the bloody game mode too.. forcing me to play a mode I usually NEVER play...

I see this making a lot of players say "wait, there are other games out there".

And Kerensky help them if they ever make another "achieve a matchscore of X in gamemode Y" type event ever again..

Edited by Vellron2005, 02 November 2015 - 12:32 AM.

[sycocys]

Wildstreak, on 01 November 2015 - 12:06 PM, said:

Map & Mode voting - watch how much Conquest and Terra Therma become unpopular. Maybe someone should start a poll for fun on that.
PS - What happens to someone who connects but does not vote due to going AFK for perhaps some Real Life issue?

I'm going to launch and not vote while I sit there because I simply don't care what mode or map is played.

[TWIAFU]

sycocys, on 30 October 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

Personally I don't care what map or mode, just that I don't end up on Oceanic server with 300+ ping vs their 4 ping.

Also hopefully they are smart enough to put in either auto-vote (pre-selected) or a relatively quick timer because people are going to flip their lids if they have to wait 5 minutes for those idiots that hit launch and walk away to mow their lawn.

Yea, are they going to force us onto sht servers with sht pings and expect us to play??

I am not going to be farmbait on Oceananic.

Mystere, on 30 October 2015 - 09:52 PM, said:

This so-called "democracy" you speak of is just a facade. It's going to sound more like Tyranny of the Majority ... and Fallout 4 is coming.

Odd.

Always thought and was taught that in a democracy the majority wins. Did they change that recently?

[oldradagast]

TWIAFU, on 02 November 2015 - 03:58 AM, said:

Odd.

Always thought and was taught that in a democracy the majority wins. Did they change that recently?

Technically, yes, but it is also considered "mob rule" or "two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner."

There's a reason most republics / democracies have some level of checks and balances in place to prevent idiocy like "the majority think we should exterminate an unpopular minority" and so forth.

Edited by oldradagast, 02 November 2015 - 04:05 AM.

[oldradagast]

Alistair Winter, on 31 October 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

This time, I'm going to just wait and try it out before raging in caps lock on the forums.

Maybe it'll be ok. I really do hate Conquest. Assault is ok. Skirmish is the least terrible gamemode.

Hopefully, most people will vote Skirmish or Assault.

Don't worry: I expect Conquest will disappear completely when this is rammed down our throats. Too bad, since some of us actually like playing a game mode that rewards something other than mindless murderball and "bring the heaviest mech you can, or a light with broken hitboxes."

[TWIAFU]

50 50, on 02 November 2015 - 12:21 AM, said:

I can foresee two potential problems with the voting.

In the solo queue, no-one can agree on anything and you end up with a random map and mode anyway which just seems that it will be difficult to get a map and mode you might prefer.

In the group queue, the larger groups will likely have more voting power as they can discuss it before they jump in.
This may also allow larger groups to tailor their drops so they can then force a map and mode more suited to their loadouts.

It will be interesting to see the interface for it and see how it works out.

Sure, let groups design dropdeck for one map.

Then those evil groups just have to hope the RNG bring them the choice of that map. Then hope they all vote for that map. Next they get to hope that the map they designed deck for is one they drop in. Lastly, the evil group has to hope that the vote is not tied and the map is chosen at random from top two.

With everyone is so much love with MWO RNG, can see why so many are scared to death about the evil group with a custom dropdeck for a specific map and the chances they will not only get that map as a choice but to actually drop in it as well.


It's the end of the world people! The evil 12man premade is in collusion with evil groups to force everyone to play against premade dropdecks, using teamwork and coordination, to force dirty PUGs into playing only the maps and modes the evil premade and evil group dictates!

We got to get this breaking news to Rush!

[oldradagast]

TWIAFU, on 02 November 2015 - 04:06 AM, said:

Sure, let groups design dropdeck for one map.

Then those evil groups just have to hope the RNG bring them the choice of that map. Then hope they all vote for that map. Next they get to hope that the map they designed deck for is one they drop in. Lastly, the evil group has to hope that the vote is not tied and the map is chosen at random from top two.

You miss the point entirely.

Under the current system, the large groups have zero ability to influence the map on which they drop. Now, they can influence it, so by definition this change grants more power to any group that wants a specific outcome. That is far more likely to be a big unit or 12-man than a bunch of PUG's or small groups. In short, they will get what they want, and everyone else is just along for the ride and to be target practice.

So, yes, this change is for the worse since it allows the game to be steered into an even more narrow meta-only ditch.

Edited by oldradagast, 02 November 2015 - 04:11 AM.

[TWIAFU]

oldradagast, on 02 November 2015 - 04:03 AM, said:

Technically, yes, but it is also considered "mob rule" or "two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner."

There's a reason most republics / democracies have some level of checks and balances in place to prevent idiocy like "the majority think we should exterminate an unpopular minority" and so forth.

To bad we do not have those checks and balances here.

[oldradagast]

TWIAFU, on 02 November 2015 - 04:11 AM, said:

To bad we do not have those checks and balances here.

Agreed.

[TWIAFU]

oldradagast, on 02 November 2015 - 04:10 AM, said:

You miss the point entirely.

Under the current system, the large groups have zero ability to influence the map on which they drop. Now, they can influence it, so by definition this change grants more power to any group that wants a specific outcome. That is far more likely to be a big unit or 12-man than a bunch of PUG's or small groups. In short, they will get what they want, and everyone else is just along for the ride and to be target practice.

So, yes, this change is for the worse since it allows the game to be steered into an even more narrow meta-only ditch.

But the evil Group has the RNG of map choice to deal with yet. If you do not like fighting a group while in a group, there is a place for that.

So, what would your solution be then? The majority exterminate an unpopular minority???