211 replies to this topic

[PraetorGix]

I really want to support and like what you do, but you make it soo hard for me sometimes. I mean, it sometimes looks like you mess up on purpose just to have extra work later on. Why did you have to make a system that punishes players with less popular preferences?
You know what? I HATE skirmish, and I like conquest Terra Therma and Alpine Peaks a lot. And now thanks to a bad system that could have been good, I will have to endure skirmish/caustic valley/frozen city all day long. I already said this, but you are inadvertently making a repetitive game even more repetitive.
And if I'm wrong and the votes are not definitive for mode selecting, please communicate so because judging by the OP that is not the case.
I don't rant because I like to, I do it on the hope that you listen to the comments even before the rage storms happening in the forums. So far I've not seen much proof of this but I can hope...

Edited by Cmdr Hurrell, 03 November 2015 - 07:04 PM.

[Fenrisian Wolf]

First match and I get a "Lobby Destroyed" error then my mech is locked and finally to top it off i get a join next match penalty

[White Bear 84]

All seems legit to me.

Also, not a fix all but if you get crash issues, try running game on fullscreen window, solved my crash issues - haven't crashed since.

[Jon Gotham]

Pepito Sbazzeguti, on 03 November 2015 - 10:53 AM, said:

Glad to see I'm not the only guy who love conquest.

This patch seem a punishment direct to me, I'm the dude who love Terra Terma, Caustic and Alpine, playing only conquest and ever been fine with the waiting queue, with this change you literally cut 90% of my fun in game..

Same here, I am not amused one jot by being forced to play skirmish by "democracy" remember that anything democratic means someone is being oppressed:)
Some of us like more tactical play than OMGZORZ SHOOTZ TEH ROBOTZZZZ.

[Grothaus]

I dont know what PGI employee suggested the map/game mode voting system,, but they should be fired. Including everyone who agreed with that unsaid person during the meeting.

The idea that it creates more "choice" is laughable, choice in an Orwellian sense maybe. It appeases the lazy whiners, who are so impatient they MUST check all game mode options, then complain when they get a game mode they dont like.

I enjoy playing conquest, but i wont go into all the reasons why. I will say that i get tired of the players who dont want to play conquest but for some reason dont uncheck the box. They are the same players that sometimes ***** in chat or coms about people capping.... of course they prefer to deathball / bulldoze every match they are in and cant see the point in any game mode that might encourage players to use different strategies. In many conquest matches it makes capping pointless, especially when your team just deathball dies within the first 5 minutes of a match, but thats a another issue entirely.

Also, voting on maps is unfair.... many of the maps most people hate, I like.... Terra Therma, Canyon Network, Alpine.... these are possibly my favorite maps. So now i wouldnt be able to play those maps anywhere near as much... and honestly, the chances of getting these maps is already lower, at least from my experience..... the most common maps are Bog, Forest, and Caustic (otherwise known as the Daytona 500).... im sure these maps pop up more by design, which also pisses me off, but whatever.

The added wait times are worth the real CHOICE we had before this patch, and hearing the explanation of "more choice" used when real choice is being taken away, well that just pisses me off,.... whoever wrote that poppycock, may just have a future in politics.

So until this unfair voting system is removed, im going to exercise the only real choice/vote i have left, and that is just not play the MWO. Good Day.

[percolated1]

Had a weird thing today after the patch. I bought a CTPL-C1 and went to Artemis the lurm racks, and it told me it would cost 2.4 million c-bills. Then when I stripped the mech clean, the price to upgrade to Artemis was corrected to 250K.

[Xenois Shalashaska]

So 3 minutes to rejoin is a joke, This game crashes way too hard to rejoin in that time. Why don't you make it that disconnects get 10 minutes to rejoin back in & sneaky ******* in game can't shoot disconnected mechs without a c-bill loss or some penalty. Its ******** that your software crashes & we get punished, then if we make it in, another player has killed us. No logic here.

The consumer does not win. Other way i mentioned is the consumer gets a fair deal.

[Dakkss]

wicm, on 03 November 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:

PGI please read in game comments....only a few of us goto the Forums.

Implying they read the forums at all anyway. If they do there is no indication they do - they rarely ever comment or do anything in threads that aren't their own. And even then it's at best 1 comment.

Heckbird, on 03 November 2015 - 03:33 PM, said:

This could allow them to expand their game modes into more than just the 3 we currently have. They can add new game modes without worrying that the player pool for any of the game modes will be too small to do so.

The solution for having gamemodes that nobody plays is not to allow the Mob to control the gamemodes - it is to create good gamemodes. Assault is just skirmish that has a chance to end within 2 minutes due to lights capturing bases. Conquest is alright since it's quite different but still often devolves into skirmish. Skirmish is alright because it's just normal Elimination TDM and every game needs that. The only reason Assault and Conquest don't play well is because you can win just by treating it like Skirmish - if there were respawns they would truly be Objective-type gamemodes. Also everybody has been asking for Solaris with 2 different forms - FFA, and Weight class based FFA. But it's hardly the community's fault that nobody plays the gamemodes when they're all the same when you break it down.

The same applies to map voting. Now nobody will select hot maps because there is no reason to - why pick a map that disadvantages you when there's the chance for a cold map that helps you? Why pick Alpine at all? There is such a problem with map design in particular maps it's not funny. Terra Therma is chokepoint galore with very little cover. Alpine is vast nothingness that Brawlers very rarely do well on because there is no cover, no variety within the map. New Forest is so large that alternate flanking options are so far away that your team is dead by the time you distracted the enemy from behind (that narrow gorge). HPG is good because it's good size and complex (upper/middle/lower level), Crimson and River has lots of buildings and cover and variety for long and short range fights, and Frozen City/CanyonTourmaline is fairly standard but with no negatives.

TL;DR, mode/map voting only works when all modes/maps are worth playing with. Whereas in MWO all modes are more or less the same and only a handful of maps are good, meaning bad maps will never be selected.

[Jeffrey Wilder]

Pretty much like the animation while choosing modes but a concern is future events.

Please do not based any event based on a particular game mode since the choice of selecting it is gone.

[Hannibal Chow]

Map and mode voting system? said it was laughable during the town hall, no more map variety at all - no one will play any of the redone maps or TT ever again, its all so predictably PGI.

Rollback to the old system please.

[Kjudoon]

DC Penalty:
Dealbreaker

Map and Mode Voting:


Hope you like skirmish on the smallest arena map possible.

PGI needs to learn that you do not put the control of a gamer's in-game experience directly in the hands of other gamers. This is NOT a good idea.

Edited by Kjudoon, 03 November 2015 - 06:57 PM.

[Jeffrey Wilder]

Jeffrey Wilder, on 03 November 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

Pretty much like the animation while choosing modes but a concern is future events.

Please do not hold any events based on a particular game mode since the choice of selecting that is gone.

I like having closer PSR values; guess that's worth taking away the ability to select game modes.

[PraetorGix]

Dak Darklighter, on 03 November 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

The solution for having gamemodes that nobody plays is not to allow the Mob to control the gamemodes - it is to create good gamemodes.

Or, failing that, to just put a random gamemode selector. It is so simple...

[Priest4357]

Like the majority here, I wanted to see how this worked in play.

5 matches tonight - 4 Skirmish/1 Assualt.

Why 1 assualt - The choice was assault or conquest. I love conquest, so bye bye to that. This last weekend's event couldn't have happened with this setup.

Take it back, let us randomize it again. This was a mistake.

[The Trumpet of Gabriel]

I like the new system. Unlike many here I have had a decent variety of maps and game modes. I also like how the game seems to find matches more quickly (for me anyway). In a lot of other online games (i.e. WT, WoT, WoWS,etc.) there is no player choice at all...the mode and maps are completely random.

[Gwydion Ward]

InnerSphereNews, on 03 November 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

Upcoming Patch - Tuesday, November 3rd @ 10AM – 1PM PDT
Patch Number: 1.4.32.0
Patch size: ~130MB

• Fixed an issue where having Cockpit Glass enabled with a triple-monitor setup would cause various graphical issues.

I was actually getting graphical issues with and without cockpit glass turned on while using Nvidia Surround.

Tried a quick few games after hearing about the patch today (late night on the 3rd). First impressions sofar:

1) UI is scaled MUCH better when the game is ran in Multi-Monitor.
2) No more disappearing Mech's and World objects!!

Gonna play a bit more tomarrow after work to make sure its 'fixed' fully... but so far.. seems like its doing a LOT better than it suddenly started acting a few patches ago (as i never had an issue with mech's vanishing from sight, visually but not their hitboxes,)

[undercover dragon]

another lock out because of the game issues, it failed ....
please fix this, i wont plan to spend any more money if it isnt resolved...
like earlier comments, i liked parts of the earlier system, i checked modes i wanted, and didnt get the ones i didnt want, awesome i know... at least in all the other MMO you select game mode, and voting was left to maps, that way if i wanted lets say on Battle field, hard core TDM, i had it then it was map voting... this system sucks, cant play conquest anymore and i was finally getting the hang of correctly playing it... granted i did have alot of fails, but hey who doesnt.

i also really would like to play, not be mech locked, when my connection, and everything is good, but client side fails

[White Bear 84]

The new system is actually working relatively well give or take.. ..that being alpine and frozen (which apparently are more popular than first thought) keep popping up a lot.

I do think that maybe conquest could get a 'sister' game mode so it could be grouped alone with this - allowing player primarily interested in conquest to focus on this game mode e.g. like a game type;

Game type: Tactical Recon - Includes: Conquest/?????
Game type: Warfare - Includes: Skirmish/Assault

The choice of maps would then probably mould a bit more, perhaps with more TT, FC etc in conquest etc etc.

That being said, players will eventually get bored of the same maps & as their builds shift so we would potentially expect this to reflect map selection. Naturally though, there seems to be a preference for the colder maps in general, while there is a preference for open maps when there are a lot of LRM's involved. Hence.. ..lots of alpine and frozen city drops.

[Kjudoon]

Sword of Morning, on 03 November 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:

I like the new system. Unlike many here I have had a decent variety of maps and game modes. I also like how the game seems to find matches more quickly (for me anyway). In a lot of other online games (i.e. WT, WoT, WoWS,etc.) there is no player choice at all...the mode and maps are completely random.

Yes, but...

• None of them were dumb enough to create Skirmish mode. You can ALWAYS cap out.
  
• Vehicles are balanced by functionality and let's skill determine effectivness with ships/tanks/plane of relatively equal power
  
• All capture modes are done smarter and more plausable.
  
• The games move slower so the smaller maps do not act like arenas... unless you're dealing with wall hugging carriers and cowardly BBs.

And they all have cone of fire which mitigates 75% of the problems MWO has.

Therefore all modes play the same and are fun and not trash TDM rambotardia that this game suffers with. There are 3 different playstyles that enforce role warfare (Destroyer/Cruiser-Battleship/Carrier) quite effectively. And it's a subtle difference between the second and third state of cruisers and battleships by their abilities and functionality.

So I think comparing the two concepts of total random modes on Wargaming/War Thunder versus what we have here is quite accurate or applicable. Wargaming and Gaijin got it right.

If PGI implemented Battle Value where loadouts and chassis of mechs had to be matched within a certain point range of each other to fight would solve the imbalance problem. Eliminate Skirmish mode and create the "King of the Hill" mode where you win by holding the central target point or kill the rest would solve that problem. And of course, cone of fire. Most problems and reasons to not play this game eliminated.

Oh... and start an 8V8 Co-Op PvE on the same map mode for less Cbills/Xp would be the cherry on top of the sundae with a Ranked queue for the epeen freaks to be quarantined in.

All things that are standard in "World of..." games.

Edited by Kjudoon, 03 November 2015 - 08:50 PM.

[SoulReaver7500]

It is hard to believe, that after playing for 2 years and having a riot doing so, that I am done with this game because of this last patch. Not being able to choose the type of match I want to play simply is not acceptable.