191 replies to this topic

[SoulReaver7500]

Due to the mode voting, I am giving up on MechWarrior guys, Have fun!

[Wing 0]

SoulReaver7500, on 26 November 2015 - 07:02 PM, said:

Due to the mode voting, I am giving up on MechWarrior guys, Have fun!

You're not the only one who's given up on PGI. A lot of people have pretty much just gave up on it now since this vote **** function was added and the community already stated DONT BREAK IT AGAIN. And they did. They broke something that was never broken to begin with. People on steam wont play the game for long once they know that Freedom choice of Mode was taken.

[Lolo van Trollinger]

that "bloody f-ing conquest cow excrement map" (i would have used a four letter, but hey,... filter) mode must go. i hate conquest, even though i like light mechs. I had conquest on filter for a long time.

currently the only solution against conquest is to PSR dumpster dive - run in, wreck havoc, die, cant even disconnect without the penalty. i dont want to be forced into that "manure heap stinking" mode.
next match, next f-ing match please, die faster team.

assault plays like skirmish with a cheaters way out.

get that "bloody trash manure heap with flies" removed. i want my viridian bog and terra therma again. thanks. havent seen them in ages.


... profanity filter... what a word. i think conquest mode is an equally profane insult to a light mech pilot. i want a filter for that "trashheap full of insects"

Edited by Lolo van Trollinger, 27 November 2015 - 04:05 PM.

[Mister Bob Dobalina]

Lolo van Trollinger, on 27 November 2015 - 04:01 PM, said:

assault plays like skirmish with a cheaters way out.

@lolo Do you think conquest is systematically bad and needs to go completely or would you consider it if it had some hefty changes to it? I was thinking about probably awarding the winning side with piles of c-bills for the gained resources in a bigger way than right now. Looser gets nothing, the winner takes it all. Would be like mining for money missions. I am with you on the fact that assault most of the time ends up in skirmish. So game mode changes is actually one side of the discussion, mode selection another. And one won´t work without the other.

[Ted Wayz]

Just boggles the mind given the amount of time it took to get PGI to put in a filter for different modes despite the communities outcry for it.

I mean you should have bought me a drink first before you did this.

Edited by Ted Wayz, 29 November 2015 - 02:39 PM.

[Tuis Ryche]

Oooo, yay, we get five more seconds of something we don't want and SOUND TOO.

WOW

[Lunatic_Asylum]

Someone from the developers or Tina has to read this thread.

[PraetorGix]

Maybe many of you did not think about this detail but, the voting system was meant to make the matchmaking faster... and their genius solution is to add 20 seconds of extra waiting time to every effing match.
If that doesn't illustrate the ridiculous thought process of these people, I don't know what does.

[FinnMcKool]

bmp

[Fle]

random game mode is a pure evil and this evil must be subjected to immediate exterminatus
map voting not so bad since we got instrument to exclude poor map designs, but still I believe it would be better if they stay random, I suppose bad map design combined with random map could be compensated by adding limited (started search for heavys - pick mech only from heavy class) ability to pick mech

[Heartless Saint]

I liked not having a option. Are you going to be punished for the build you brought? That is the awesome part.

[MagnumLovin]

Find a better way. This is lunacy, simply because it's stupid. Since when do soldiers get a vote? I'm sure they got a vote to land at Normandy, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, or even Gettysburg--any battle throughout history. The vote happened before the battle and by the officers to keep the enemy guessing or by having better ground, even the timing. This voting stuff is -- really not very well thought out.

It's the death of hot maps, too. I haven't seen the remade beautiful (at night) Caustic Valley since....after all that work on it too? How much did PGI pay for that design? And no one wants to play it. It's HOT! WaaaaaaH!

That's my vote. Get rid of voting and making maps elective is wrong too. Play, or don't.

I quit till then. (I'm not holding my breath. I don't have a death wish, but I do have feet.)

[Unreliable Mercenary]

I would like to be able to choose my own game mode. Map voting is fine.

[Threat Doc]

I HATED playing the random garbage we got all the time. Whether I liked Terra Therma or not, HPG or not, Conquest or not, Assault or not, etc., I got to play it regardless, and I was utterly miserable.

I LOVE the new voting system, for both Map and Mode, because of the tracker's that have now been added. If I choose a map and mode I want to play, and I don't get either or both of those, I get an additional point, accordingly, so that my vote will, eventually, allow me to play what I want to play, or at least the closest thing to it. More often than not, however, I am playing on the maps and in the modes I want to, and I've been enjoying the hell right out of it.

Now, here's what I have to say to all those folks who don't like the new voting system... What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've been playing on YOUR maps and YOUR modes for the longest time, having no choice in it, and I frickin' HATE surprises when it comes down to map and mode selection. Now, I finally get to play the maps and modes I want to play, when they come up to be played. Suck it up and drive on, princess, because I hope this current voting mode, or something better, will remain in place, and/or will continue to be improved, as such...

The only way this could be made better, is if PGI allowed me to choose the maps, in my settings, that I'm fond of playing on, perhaps even allowing me to score 1 to 10, for how much I like the map and/or mode, for each of the maps and modes, and then takes my preferences, adds them to all of yours, auto-magically, and then drops all of us into a map and a mode, per match, that is chosen in a more logical sense.

Better yet, how about everything gets rolled into CW, where everyone is involved in actual robust contracting, rather than the crap we have, now, and then the world we're playing on determines the map(s) available to us, where our leaders have chosen where we're to set down for a mission, and then we go perform that mission in objective-based warfare.

[Vovin76]

I Hate the Mode voting!
The Map voting is better than before. You have a choice to affecting the map you can play. Not perfect but it is ok for me.

The Mode voting is a disadvantage for everyone.

I don't like the conquest mode, and i'm sorry for the guys that likes to play it.
Let me say it this way.... i think i'm not a good Teammate to conquest...

[Hawk_eye]

Kay Wolf, on 19 December 2015 - 11:13 PM, said:

Now, here's what I have to say to all those folks who don't like the new voting system... What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've been playing on YOUR maps and YOUR modes for the longest time, having no choice in it, and I frickin' HATE surprises when it comes down to map and mode selection. Now, I finally get to play the maps and modes I want to play, when they come up to be played. Suck it up and drive on, princess, because I hope this current voting mode, or something better, will remain in place, and/or will continue to be improved, as such...

How were you forced to play "our" modes?
You could select the modes you wanted to play before joining before voting was introduced.

Note: I am perfectly fine with whatever mode and most maps I get (Viridian Bog can rot in hell as far as I am concerned though)

Kay Wolf, on 19 December 2015 - 11:13 PM, said:

Better yet, how about everything gets rolled into CW, where everyone is involved in actual robust contracting, rather than the crap we have, now, and then the world we're playing on determines the map(s) available to us, where our leaders have chosen where we're to set down for a mission, and then we go perform that mission in objective-based warfare.

And how would that be different from the "random crap" you despised so much?
In random mode, the higher ups (employer/great house/Khan) decides where and for what goal you fight. You have no say in this --> Random mode/map selection.

[Threat Doc]

Antecursor Venatus, on 24 December 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

How were you forced to play "our" modes?

You could select the modes you wanted to play before joining before voting was introduced.

Yes, and if I wasn't playing more than one mode, which is closed-minded and short-sighted and weak, though I did do so for a while, and then gave up and started playing all modes, anyway, I would have a really hard time getting into a game. When I started playing in all three modes, I started getting games; I now don't hate any one mode, because I know how to play them all, whereas the pukes who didn't play those modes for the longest time, are now providing at least some manner of opposition for those who love those other modes.

Conquest is THE most hated game mode, and is probably played less than 20% of the time; whereas it was almost NEVER played before, now the Conquest folks can get that mode more often, and you get to provide the fodder for them, sometimes, whereas it used to just be them providing fodder for you. I think this is justice, and it's more fair than it used to be, as all game modes get some manner of play at some point or another; if you can't agree with that then, in the tradition of tomorrow's significance, you are a scrooge.

Quote

Note: I am perfectly fine with whatever mode and most maps I get (Viridian Bog can rot in hell as far as I am concerned though)

Antecursor, you have supported my point-of-view in the past, or our shared point-of-view, so I will ask the question nicely, what was your post about?

Quote

And how would that be different from the "random crap" you despised so much?

In random mode, the higher ups (employer/great house/Khan) decides where and for what goal you fight. You have no say in this --> Random mode/map selection.

This is different, first, for the obvious reason. If you're playing in Faction Warfare (FW just doesn't roll off the tongue like CW did, for some reason), you choose what world you go to and, generally, you know by the name of the map what sort of environment you're going to be in, right? And, you can choose your 'Mech appropriately. Also, the mode you're playing in CW is Skirmish, period, because MWO doesn't have the depth God gave a squirrel, yet, to do anything else. If it were up to me, I would roll all game modes into one; face it, the only difference between Skirmish and Assault in PUG matches, is that you have the possibility of taking a base, and between Assault and Conquest you have five bases you can take. There are so many threads for objective-based warfare on this forum, including mine, that PGI HAS to get the hint, at some point, that we are dissatisfied with the way things are running. The introduction of the 4v4 Scouting, coming soon^tm , is going to be a very welcome addition, as well as the scouting bonuses that can happen in CW itself, but it's too little, and may very well be too late, as well.

Second, I've already explained this, but I'll explain it, again... the random crap I'm talking about is, yes, I used to be able to select which modes I played in, but seldom the map, and so many of my designs wound up being useless, because I have built my 'Mechs around the principles of heat dissipation and proper heat management. Just once, I would love to be able to build a 'Mech for the environment, especially if customization in the 'Mech Lab remains in the game, which it will, and then go balls to the walls on a map that allows for that type of customization. As it is, now, if I don't get to play my choice of either map or mode, I build up voting points that allow me to, eventually, get to play the type of map or mode I DO want to play. Frankly, I think that's a whole lot more awesome than getting stuck on Terra Mordor or in Degobah forever.

I will admit, however, that I do end up playing Viridian Bog, still, a LOT more than I want to.

Allow me to exclude up to one-third of all the maps available, so I can play on maps I actually want to play on, and allow me to go back to selecting my game modes individually, and ONLY THAT would be better than the voting system we have in-game, now. If we go back to the old random BS way of doing things, I may withdraw further funding for my Archers, and leave the game; I can't play in a game that is thoroughly unplayable to me, and now that I've used the new voting system, I don't want to go back.

[Hawk_eye]

Kay Wolf, on 24 December 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Antecursor, you have supported my point-of-view in the past, or our shared point-of-view, so I will ask the question nicely, what was your post about?

I simply replied to your " I've been playing on YOUR maps and YOUR modes for the longest time, having no choice in it,"
which wasn´t actually true for modes.
Yes, if you only selected a single mode, you had to wait longer for a game (I have only played a very few weeks before the voting got introduced, so my experience in how long it took is somewhat limited), but that was only because you limited yourself to one single mode.
Not really the game´s fault (well, aside of losing a lot of players, thus making the player-base too small to divide it even further)

Personally, I have voted for "make everything random" from the get-go, because I feel that is how you, as a soldier, should work. I can´t remember that there was a vote on whether a grunt preferred to invade Okinawa or Normandy in WW2 either.
I understand that, if you really despise a mode/map, this might be a problem, but I feel the _real_ problem here is, that PGI offered the choices in the first place.
If the game had always been "everything is random", no-one would complain
Well, people would still complain about the modes and maps, but not about not being able to choose, but about maps/modes being bad - which actually is what we _should_ complain about - making all maps and modes fun (and yes, I agree that more depth is desperately needed)

Kay Wolf, on 24 December 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

This is different, first, for the obvious reason. If you're playing in Faction Warfare (FW just doesn't roll off the tongue like CW did, for some reason), you choose what world you go to and, generally, you know by the name of the map what sort of environment you're going to be in, right? And, you can choose your 'Mech appropriately.

Kay Wolf, on 24 December 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

and so many of my designs wound up being useless, because I have built my 'Mechs around the principles of heat dissipation and proper heat management. Just once, I would love to be able to build a 'Mech for the environment,

This is probably just me, but I take that as a challenge/choice.
Do I build a specialized mech, that works _very_ well on some maps, but rather bad on some others and take the risk of ending up on one of those non-optimal maps or do I build a more "generalist" mech, that, while not being as good on the optimal map, _does_ work on all of them?
(and yes, I´m probably not your average, competitive player, lol)

Kay Wolf, on 24 December 2015 - 09:34 AM, said:

Allow me to exclude up to one-third of all the maps available, so I can play on maps I actually want to play on, and allow me to go back to selecting my game modes individually, and ONLY THAT would be better than the voting system we have in-game, now. If we go back to the old random BS way of doing things, I may withdraw further funding for my Archers, and leave the game; I can't play in a game that is thoroughly unplayable to me, and now that I've used the new voting system, I don't want to go back.

While I, personally, would be perfectly fine with this (I would still leave all game-modes checked and only take out one or two maps), this would divide the player base and lengthen your wait time for a game again, which, if I read you correctly, was the thing that made you tick all modes in the past in the first place.
If you took out 1/3 of the maps and choose only to play one game-mode (admittedly an extreme example) then you would either have to wait for _ages_ for a game or be "forced" into playing stuff you don´t like again.

[Threat Doc]

First, good morning, and Merry Christmas.

Antecursor Venatus, on 25 December 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

Personally, I have voted for "make everything random" from the get-go, because I feel that is how you, as a soldier, should work. I can´t remember that there was a vote on whether a grunt preferred to invade Okinawa or Normandy in WW2 either.

No, but then that's the point... you DON'T have a choice, but at the same time, a soldier participating in an invasion has some idea of where they're going, what sort of terrain they're going to be dealing with, and what's expected of them. It's NOT random when you're a soldier, even if it's not somewhere you want to go as a soldier

Quote

I understand that, if you really despise a mode/map, this might be a problem, but I feel the _real_ problem here is, that PGI offered the choices in the first place.

If the game had always been "everything is random", no-one would complain. Well, people would still complain about the modes and maps, but not about not being able to choose, but about maps/modes being bad - which actually is what we _should_ complain about - making all maps and modes fun (and yes, I agree that more depth is desperately needed)

And, see, I think you have that backwards. It's a difference of opinion, between whether we should have some modicum of realism in a computer game, or if we should be able to treat the game like a game, and choose where we want to go and what we want to do. Not to put too fine a point on it, we wouldn't have the map and mode voting system if enough people had not overpopulated the "island" and expanded onto the mainland. I was NOT, for the record, one of those people who advocated for a voting system -I have different ideas about what PGI SHOULD do, which definitely puts me on an island-, but now that we have that system, I like it, I feel it works better than the random maps all the time, and it allows everyone to, eventually, get the map they want to play on, and the mode they want to play.

There's also a side-effect from this... people are playing the 'Mech(s) they want to play, or that has the best chance of helping their team win, if they're grouped up, and this means Recon guys are actually doing Recon, missile guys are missile'ing, hehe, and brawlers still rule the battlefield in the end of very nearly every single match. This means they are continuing training toward filling out their team job, for when PGI gets more role definition into the game -remember the 4v4 Scouting game is coming, soon, and there's more coming in the future.

Quote

Do I build a specialized mech, that works _very_ well on some maps, but rather bad on some others and take the risk of ending up on one of those non-optimal maps or do I build a more "generalist" mech, that, while not being as good on the optimal map, _does_ work on all of them?

(and yes, I´m probably not your average, competitive player, lol)

See, that's my problem, as well... in a competitive game, I'm just here to throw missiles, when I'm not leveling up new 'Mechs, and to have fun. More often than not that ends with me dead at the hands of some overpowered Light 'Mech. I do, however, have my competitive nights, and I get mad at myself, and my fellow players, because I haven't found a complete competitive streak. This is why I've designed my 'Mechs around good heat management more than alpha's, because whenever I'm riding side-saddle with almost anyone else, I see how crappy, IN MY OPINION, 90% of the 'Mechs are out there. When someone fires a single alpha, with almost no heat built up, and they shut down after missing all, or nearly all, of their shots, I want to reach into the computer scream, across the internet, and slap them. If you're going to build a meta-'Mech, the least the pilot could do is hit with their damn shots, hehe.

Quote

While I, personally, would be perfectly fine with this (I would still leave all game-modes checked and only take out one or two maps), this would divide the player base and lengthen your wait time for a game again, which, if I read you correctly, was the thing that made you tick all modes in the past in the first place.

If you took out 1/3 of the maps and choose only to play one game-mode (admittedly an extreme example) then you would either have to wait for _ages_ for a game or be "forced" into playing stuff you don´t like again.

And that's what the huge problem is... there is NO way, at this point, to satisfy everyone; there are two major camps, which you and I have been discussing: totally random maps with chosen modes, the way it used to be, and having voting for both maps and modes, as it is, now. However, I want to open a third camp, that where everything is rolled into Faction Warfare, no PUGs, the game modes completely re-developed to be sequential, and increasingly important, and harsh, missions in FW. You start out with Reconnaissance and Intelligence Gathering for your unit, like the forthcoming 4v4 Scouting and the position, information and support improvements in FW, move along to small skirmishes and objective-based missions -this is the point where a contract would end, once the objective is completed-, and then Guerrilla Warfare and/or unit destruction style contracts, and finally major combat missions and playing through all of the games necessary for Battalion and Regiment size excursions for Planetary Warfare.

Note that the depth of the contract determines when success for the contracted unit is reached, and so it doesn't always need to be a Planetary Conquest issue, as it is, now. The number of missions and/or objectives to accomplish within any given contract can be programmed into the game, for negotiation with the Unit Commander, or their appointed representative (there may be multiple reps), a counter-contract set out for another unit, if the world is not already defended, under garrison, to keep the PvP going, that would outline ALL of the defensible objectives on the world -almost always more than the attacker negotiated for-, to give the defending commander, whether already on the world or just taking the contract, time to set their defenses. The attacking commander then determines how missions within the contract will iterate, will choose three dates and three times per date for each mission to be accomplished, which are then sent to the opposing commander to select one date and time from for each mission, to play them off. If a date-time cannot be agreed on, especially now that we have servers in the U.S., in Europe, and in Oceania, the defender forfeits, or some other arrangement can be made.

Yep, that's about it. If we're going to have a war game, let's have a war game. Put everyone on the same playing field, separate the units out into tiers, and let those tiers rock and roll against one another. THAT is how it is in the BattleTech expanded universe, and that's how it should be, here.

[Hawk_eye]

A (somewhat late) merry Christmas to you too.

So what you propose is, basically, the campaign/campaign-tree of the past MechCommander and MechWarrior games (MechCommander is probably more fitting) as a multi-player game.
I have to admit, that I would _love_ that.

The main problem I see is, that I can´t imagine something like this to see the light of day anytime soon (or anytime at all, lol).
The second problem I see is, as you said, no PUGs.
If being member of a unit would become a requirement, this would probably turn off a few people, and quite a few that remain would form - how to phrase this - "PUG-Units".
If many PUGs are unable to play Assault/Conquest decently, how do you imagine them to perform in those objective based missions (and I´m aware that I am guilty of this too - l´m still not used to communicate enough on the battlefield)

As I said, I would _love_ a game like this, I just don´t see MWO becoming that game.