211 replies to this topic

[Ward Serpentine]

Kjudoon, on 03 November 2015 - 08:47 PM, said:

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.

To a point... Problem is, that the battle value system in tabletop is broken as well. You would have to come up with a system that accounted for chassis, variant, armor, engine size, weapons, quirks, pilot skills, modules (and their ratings), weight class, PSR, etc. etc. etc. While I feel that if such a system was able to be developed and deployed, it would definitely have a positive impact on matchmaking speed (just adding up numbers) it would probably be too complex to implement at this time. It would have to have been considered way back in closed beta.

[Warzog]

Jabilo, on 03 November 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

To give some background I only play conquest as I believe it is the only game that has any semblance of tactical play (and even then not most of the time).

Conquest Mode reminds me more of gang warfare. Most Conquest drops I've been in there are one or two gangs going from resource to resource gang banging everyone along the way. The resources give them a place to set up ambushes. I'd rather sneak around, or flank them, to catch them off guard. Knowing where they HAVE to go isn't very tactical, to me.

Mistydove, on 03 November 2015 - 12:57 PM, said:

Map selection and game mode is the stupidest idea . least all pick the same bloody map and game mode match after match .

I have to agree, to a point. The 15 second timer should be changed to 15 seconds AFTER the last player logs into the voting screen. I've heard of people exclaiming that they never got to vote, only voted one time since the patch came out, or didn't have enough time to vote.
And mixing up the map choices more would be nice. I've had the "HPG Uplink" as a choice, which is ALWAYS selected by the "majority," about 7 of every 10 matches. I've heard others complain of the same problem with other maps. I think that changing the vote timer as I stated above would also help.

Mistydove, on 03 November 2015 - 01:17 PM, said:

Um ..... Do you realize its only a choice between Assault and Skirmish . No one votes for conquest and no one votes for Alpine peaks , terra therma , Viridian bog etc

Again, I think that changing the voting time (15 seconds after last player gets to the voting screen) would solve this problem. It would also be a nice way to weed out players who's connection is so bad that they end up not entering the match, ever.

[Banse]

Can we get the MWO icon to flash when voting starts if we are tabbed out? I usually have to wait a minute or two for a game to be found and will be using that time browsing the nets.

Either that or have the in-game chat functionality work while searching for a game... and community chat rooms...

Just thoughts.

[Tylerchu]

So...
Seeing the various comments on map and gamemode choice, what if we did this:
-Return gamemode choice back to what it was originally; check which of the three gamemodes you want. This should have never been changed because it's a matter of little consequence in the actual game.

-Upon launching matchmaker, you're allowed to choose say...three maps out of a random six (or whatever), and then MM does its magic and shuffles things around to stick you into a match with your preferred gamemode(s) and either of the maps.

[stuh42l]

After dropping today I can say this.

Goodbye conquest!

Goodbye Terra Firma!

Goodbye Bog!

Goodbye Alpine!

Edited by stuh42l, 03 November 2015 - 11:36 PM.

[wicm]

Please trade crapquest for solaris with leaderboard....

[Ragashar]

I like the changes, at least on paper. Didn't play last night...

The disconnection penalty would needs to be harsher. And the 20 minute max penalty could be way higher... It could go up to an hour so it really wouldn't be worth it for anyone to do just this... Just add 20 minutes to the penalty after the fifth one. MOBA games have way harsher penalties than these in place.

And these guys who have this thing automated are probably the people with the 2.15 billion credits on their accounts. No way you can gather this much cash if you actually play the game... It is not like your standard MMO, in which the cash you gain from a "quest" (match in MWO case) goes up exponentially as you play more...

There could be an added thing in the disconnect penalty where a mech from team A should have damaged a mech from team B for you to get any advancement from the game... No credits and no XP for you, if you disconnect before that... And if you ever re-connect to the match, you would be fully compensated with credits and xp based on your performance as usual. This would be even after the 3 minute mark disconnect limit.

Take away the prize and there is nothing to gain by "automated" queue joins and the problem should solve it self over time...

I really hate it when that 100 ton Atlas discoes as soon as it hits the ground leaving you with quite a lot less firepower than you should have had... It is just not a fair fight after that by any standards.

[percolated1]

I always try to keep things positive, but I really dislike the map voting already. 10 drops, 9 of 'em on HPG Manifold. This is getting boring fast.

[Vox Scorpus]

Great ! So now we have to worry about base caps in Assault or Conquest? Are we all supposed to take cap accelerators? I don't mind the 4 map choice (hello HPG all the time) but lose of game mode is gonna make people mad! Still gonna play tho - maybe PGI will figure it out. I do like the owned camo screen.

[Ragashar]

stuh42l, on 03 November 2015 - 10:45 PM, said:

After dropping today I can say this. Goodbye conquest! Goodbye Terra Firma! Goodbye Bog! Goodbye Caldera!

This is another thing that can be ****** about this... The voting should not be "all decisive", but should influence the odds on which a certain option is selected. Take all the votes into account into the random generator with each vote adding to the chance of it happening. So each vote could actually end up being the selected map/game mode.

I really like the fact that this was implemented, since not all mechs are equal in every map so you have a chance to get a map that more fits your mech... Some may have better heat management for the hotter maps, some may be really slow and thus really bad in Terra Therma Conquest.

One option could be that you just pick the chassis you want to play (Jenner for example) and you select the variant you take into the game after you know what you are playing... Is it a large map (long range weapons needed). is it conquest where mobility is important. Is it canyon where jump jets are really good etc. etc. Is it Caustic Valley or Terra Therma where heat management is important...

The game has all these wonderful opportunities and options... Make use of them, but do give the players a chance to influence the game they are going into. Steps are being taken into the right direction... I like the overall direction, the implementation needs refinement.

[Speedy Plysitkos]

very good patch. VERY GOOD. the mode selection is perfect, thank you for it. (no sarcasm, i rly like it)

to all crying about HPG. its the best map, so players WANT to play that map. NObody wants to play YUOUR alpine specialzed mech map there. ADAPT. or QQ.-

[EvangelX]

Not sure if the new match system but my wait times for a game have increased well beyond a joke.

[Kjudoon]

Not everyone wants to play your way.

Hpg is good for a crappy a arena shooter i never wanted.

Stop designing. For xbox

[Cpt Zippo]

Conquest = RIP

Worst patch ever!!!

[Pepito Sbazzeguti]

Titannium, on 04 November 2015 - 01:54 AM, said:

very good patch. VERY GOOD. the mode selection is perfect, thank you for it. (no sarcasm, i rly like it)

to all crying about HPG. its the best map, so players WANT to play that map. NObody wants to play YUOUR alpine specialzed mech map there. ADAPT. or QQ.-

When all will be bored to play only skirmish in a small bounch of maps and will leave the game you will have to ADAPT and leaving the game too.

Edited by Pepito Sbazzeguti, 04 November 2015 - 02:15 AM.

[Hagen von Tronje]

I think, I must have been in a different game. . I'm not complaining often...but this time....
Never liked conquest...never chose it...landed there two times. The map is not the problem....
Wanted Skirmish, at least when I'm playing Assault-Mech....but getting only assault or conquest.
For now the game is totally screwed
Maybe it is time to leave the game for a couple of weeks ...or month.
What was the Name of the game which willbe releast the next days.....Fallout 4, maybe I try this for a while.
Oh, Skyrim is on my desktop too....and swtor....
Why do they think they can do any **** without the Players leaving?

[Maugged]

Extremly disapointed by the voting system. Really, i find that change insulting.

[dragnier1]

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..

I voted assault and got conquest instead.

There you go, people still play conquest

Edited by dragnier1, 04 November 2015 - 04:06 AM.

[Yozzman]

Maugged, on 04 November 2015 - 02:30 AM, said:

Extremly disapointed by the voting system. Really, i find that change insulting.

Same here!! It feels like a slap in the face...

[Asmosis]

Snowi, on 03 November 2015 - 03:42 PM, said:

I´m against the voting thing, also.

In theory this system should work fine, but it won´t and never will. Reason for that is that humans are humans and not machines.

There are "favored" maps and "unfavored" ones, like Frozen City & Mordor. With favored I mean a Map which suits my Mech best/worst. Never ever would I upvote a hot map, I´d always chose a cold one if available.

Big games tried this systems a million times and (at least if memory serves correct) failed. It is simply the wrong answer to the problem at hand.

The only reason why this would be ever implemented is that people nagging about the lack of choice. But why would they do that? Because every mechbuild has weaknesses and you can only hope not to land on a map which is unfavoured from your point. So it isnt a lack of control but a lack of information as a player. With this problem at hand there are 2 Options:

1: You let them choose the maps they are favoring. Problem: There are Maps and gamemodes which will never be played again, because they are simply against your interest in winning.

2: You narrow the pool and declare which maps will be played before a map starts. Problem: Players hate it when they cant choose and are limited in the possible gameplay. (Forum whining backlash)


Well as a developer myself I would choose number 2.

Example mechanic:
Every week/month there will be an announcement about which maps are in the pool with a little fluff text. Maybe with the exact percent which map could appear. The same goes with gamemodes if you wish. This way you give the players the information to know which build they should play and what Mechs should stay in garage.

Like I said players hate this approach if confronted directly, but on the long run its the better choice. Also this could be a great time to implement short term goals like daily/weekly/monthly challenges with little prices like C-Bills or bonus exp.

This are just my 2 cents. ^^

I like map selection in theory, but in practice it just means i'll never play half the maps again which is a shame.

What I would rather see instead of a selection of 4 maps, is a selection of 4 ~equally weighted MECHS so I can field the right mech for the map and not get stuck with a brawler on alpine etc.

The mechs would have to be within 5 tons of each other to prevent the teams getting unbalanced while still allowing people to swap between their 4 mechs freely (you'd have the option of empty slots if you don't have 4 mechs).