57 replies to this topic

[OznerpaG]

a possible solution to the group vote - each group only has 1 vote for all players in that group

[oldradagast]

TWIAFU, on 02 November 2015 - 04:15 AM, said:

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???

How about backing off on the reduction to the absurd assumptions for a start?

Maybe we should just leave things the way they are? There is NO reason for the map voting to be added. The forced merger of the game mode types is happening because the game's population is small and ever shrinking, so they can't produce enough games anymore because of people who have only 1 game mode checked. I don't agree with their solution, but I see why they are doing it.

But map voting is NOT needed because we currently can't filter out maps anyway, so it's not an issue of "nobody wants to play on Terra Therma and that's making it hard for the matchmaker to create games." No, the addition of map voting is a stupid decision that will basically vote the least popular maps - and the maps least suited to the current meta - out of existence. Because if there's one thing a struggling game with limited content needs is a reduction in game variety, apparently.

Edited by oldradagast, 02 November 2015 - 04:20 AM.

[TWIAFU]

oldradagast, on 02 November 2015 - 04:20 AM, said:

How about backing off on the reduction to the absurd assumptions for a start?

Your right, I was/is as absurd now and when you said it.

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.

Who is being made out to be the bad guys here and by whom? 12mans and Groups, the minority, by solo, the majority.

Who is being targeted for removal and nerfing from game and by whom? 12 mans and groups by solo.

Maybe we should exercise those checks and balances you want so much to prevent exactly what you posted, "the majority think we should exterminate an unpopular minority"

.

[oldradagast]

TWIAFU, on 02 November 2015 - 04:26 AM, said:

Your right, I was/is as absurd now and when you said it.



Who is being made out to be the bad guys here and by whom? 12mans and Groups, the minority, by solo, the majority.

Who is being targeted for removal and nerfing from game and by whom? 12 mans and groups by solo.

Maybe we should exercise those checks and balances you want so much to prevent exactly what you posted, "the majority think we should exterminate an unpopular minority"

.

Check your reading comprehension,

Small groups and solos are complaining because the big groups will simply be able to vote for whatever map they want out of the given options every time. That means fewer maps will be seen by the players and that I'll always be playing on whatever map the mob wants, not what I want.

So, yes, those of us who like variety and who are smart enough to realize that giving 12-mans the power to get rid of their least favorite maps is a dumb idea are upset at this change.

In short, quit whining. The current system is equitable to all; I have no idea why you want to give MORE power to those who don't need it or why you want small groups and solos to be marginalized, and I really don't care since you clearly don't understand the problem and are too busy defending the "poor, picked on" 12-mans.

[Shae Starfyre]

They should never have given us the choice between game modes; now this.

[Khobai]

Quote

Great, instead of 0% Skirmish I'm now going to get 75%.

More like 100% of the time. Assault is basically skirmish afterall.

Conquest is NEVER going to get picked in this dumb voting system.

[Alistair Winter]

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

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."

Those are precisely the reason I avoid Conquest.

It's the most popular game mode for Cheetahs
It's the most popular game mode for Streakboats
Most matches are decided by which team can get 3-4 kills first
Most maps have all bases really close together, making light mechs less instrumental
If you spend most of the game capping, you get paid peanuts

Edited by Alistair Winter, 02 November 2015 - 07:03 AM.

[Mystere]

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?

Read this. The first paragraph is a good summary.

[Bilbo]

Played 38 games Thursday night with all modes selected in the solo queue. Breakdown was 14A/6C/18S. This has been typical of my experience for quite some time. I wonder if I'll ever see a conquest game after the vote goes live.

[50 50]

I am interested to see how it works out and how the interface looks/works.
What puzzled me was more that it was a change in the design to reduce the complexity that the match maker had to deal with.... but then added another layer of complexity into the process.

For those of you who didn't listen to the meeting, server selections are not going to change. That is not a factor.

Prior to this update, the match maker has/had to do the following:
Match the 3/3/3/3 (now removed, though this is still in place for the solo queue I believe)
Find enough players trying to bring together as many of the same PSR level as possible.
At the same time it was also trying to match those players based on their game mode selections using some sort of weight based algorithm.
Then is started the match.

What it will now be doing:
Find enough players based on PSR.
Start the match by going to a voting screen.
Players vote on:
4 randomly selected maps.
2 randomly selected game modes.
Begin play.

What it has done is move the mode selection to after the teams have been assembled.
This sounds like a fairly significant removal of what the match maker had to deal with.
We get a new feature which is the voting on maps in addition to then also voting on a game mode.

It just seemed a bit of an odd way to do it.

@TWIAFU
I was only highlighting that it will be possible for groups, particularly large groups, to potentially have control over the drops.
It will not always work that way due to the slightly random nature of the voting options.
But it does give some control that was not there before.

Keep in mind that the majority of groups are in the 2 - 4 player range so it should be fairly random still.
It will be the odd occasion where one team has a significantly large group that the vote may be heavily influenced.

I like that we now are getting a bit of choice, but it seemed like half a choice that may not matter anyway.
Hence, why bother with it and not just keep the modes and maps random with no player selection at all.

All that said, I believe the ultimate solution is to set up a list of battlezones that have a map, mode and PSR tier that we select from after forming up.
That way it is all visible to the players.
We have all the choice.
We can prepare up front as much as we like for the type of game we want to play.
We are responsible for creating our own balance.
No match maker at all.

[InspectorG]

Players will get map selection.

Players will cry they only ever see 2 maps.

Mech 'WARRIORS' my left *ss cheek. Warriors fight in strange foreign lands that may be hostile.

Not in a guaranteed air conditioned campsite. Weak.

[Slepnir]

I still like the way BF3 did it, before you search you select all the maps and modes you want to play, they also let you choose your kit before loading in, but that would be a bit hard for MWO in my opinion.

[Wildstreak]

Interesting, played some yesterday, actually saw a few Conquest though mainly on Tourmaline.

Still not Terra or Caustic. No Alpine yet either.

[Simbacca]

JaxRiot, on 30 October 2015 - 09:42 PM, said:

Not a fan of these changes. I play Conquest almost exclusively. I dont like Assault, and I Hate Skirmish.

I always enjoyed having the freedom to choose even though my wait times were longer. Now wait times might be shorter but Im going to be stuck playing game modes I dislike most of the time.

For me I play Conquest and Assault exclusively, and I do hate skirmish. I only played skirmish during the event. During non-event times I noticed really lopsided teams for Skirmish mode. During the event, that generally was not the case.

With that said, Conquest and Assault are my favourite modes, in that order.

[Mystere]

I have a new rule. 3xSkirmish in a row means I am done with MWO for the day. I simply refuse to become someone else's involuntary "content".

This gives me time to play my other games or, better yet, do other things.

Sayonara.

Edited by Mystere, 04 November 2015 - 03:57 PM.

[oldradagast]

Alistair Winter, on 02 November 2015 - 06:59 AM, said:

Those are precisely the reason I avoid Conquest.

It's the most popular game mode for Cheetahs
It's the most popular game mode for Streakboats
Most matches are decided by which team can get 3-4 kills first
Most maps have all bases really close together, making light mechs less instrumental
If you spend most of the game capping, you get paid peanuts

Those are actually valid points, so perhaps I should clarify: Conquest does have problems as is - payout is poor for following the mission objectives, and cap points are sometimes in odd places. The Arctic Cheetah issue is entirely separate and not based on the map mode.

That being said, I STILL would like to play this mode vs. mindless murderball Skirmish all the time.

The real problem is that I seriously doubt PGI will fix any of the valid problems raised in Assault or Conquest. Because who cares - "everyone" wants Skirmish, so they are getting what they want, so why fix anything? Instead, resources will be spent mucking around with CW and producing ever more mech packs so we can have infinite barely useful mechs to play on 3 or 4 maps and 2 game modes. Nice.

Edited by oldradagast, 04 November 2015 - 03:59 PM.

[AssaultPig]

a team that falls behind by a couple kills is much more likely to be able to rally in conquest, because 1) teams are likely more spread out and 2) maybe you eke out a win on points. Compare to skirmish, where if your team gets down 3-4 mechs you may as well just eject.

Conquest isn't a perfect mode; some of the maps are kinda poorly laid out or too close together. But at least there's some impetus to be aggressive and not stick in a big group all the time.

[Wildstreak]

Vote in the new Map Poll to maintain ongoing track of maps seen most and least.