191 replies to this topic

[Rejarial Galatan]

foust i think you are daft sir. All that is being played are cold maps and skirmish. thats it. thats not a metric thats the simple minded morons keeping the rest of us down with sheer volume. voting in all its forms must leave or MWO will die. PGI slashed its wrists with this patch, and if they dont fix it and fix it SOON MWO will die. Im a damned veteran of this game, been here on the forums since early 2012 and was in wave 2 closed beta. I have put my fair share of coin into this game, but no more. I want to see this game thrive not wither. voting is poison to this game.

[Sheepdog86]

The current voting system brings up a few problems. We will never drop Conquest or Terra Therma ever again, just because they're not popular. While I have no love lost for either, doing them on occasion at least familiarizes people with them and the appropriate tactics and strategies. I like the map vote specifically if there are going to keep being events based on dropping in every map over the course of the event. Last such event, people were disco-ing on purpose because they didn't drop on the map they needed, and it was breaking the matches, sometimes severely. If we don't get to choose, event reward criteria shouldn't be based on a random matchmaker. If they're going to let us choose, I think it should be even more specific. Pick the maps you want to drop on AND the modes you want to play, so you don't have your cool-running assault mech in alpine conquest, or your hot-running laser boat in a therma skirmish. Just thinking in-game "realism" here, no one jumps blindly into assaulting a planet (or any battlefield). They analyze where they're going first and equip themselves accordingly. The current system of selecting mech AND THEN map/mode kind of gets the whole idea backwards. Canonically, this is what happened at Tukayyid. Wolf anaylzed the situation, equipped accordingly, and won. The rest dropped like pugs and got thrashed by Comstar because they weren't equipped well for where they were and what they were doing.

[MadFJohn]

i am limited on times i can play and why should i be forced to play game modes i hate. remove the vote As i said be for one of the few founders left playing and this going to make me quit that will be one less player but why do you care ?

[El Bandito]

Grothaus, on 06 November 2015 - 05:43 PM, said:

Id like to see what other players thought about the issue.

Your poll is not perfect, IMO. Mode and map voting is most problematic in the Group Queue, where big teams abuse it a lot. In Solo-Q, I have no issue with voting. My opinion would be to remove voting from Group Queue entirely, while leaving Solo-Q with voting system.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 November 2015 - 02:41 AM.

[Hawk_eye]

As far as I understand it, this was introduced to speed up MM.

If this is indeed the reason for the voting system (with it´s obvious drawbacks), why not just go fully random?

The only other FTP game I have any experience in is World of Warships, and maps and game-mode are random there.
Sure, there are maps and game-modes I would rather not play when I am in my battleship and other maps/modes I´d rather avoid when in a destroyer, but over-all, everything equals out in the end, waiting time is as short as the player-base allows and everyone gets to play every map and every mode once in a while.

You fight where, when and for whatever goal the-powers-that-are decide. Never heard of soldiers being able to _vote_ if they rather want to fight the Japanese in the Pacific or the Germans in France (just as an example).
From that perspective, voting is just stupid.

[Hellcat420]

i'm indifferent about the map voting, but the mode voting has to go. I probably wont be playing again until I can choose the game mode I play. if I do play I can guarantee ill either dc or suicide if I get stuck playing skirmish/assault nonstop.
I really don't give a **** about the mm wait times, they were not any longer than current wait times with this ****** voting.

Edited by Hellcat420, 08 November 2015 - 05:30 AM.

[TWIAFU]

El Bandito, on 08 November 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

Your poll is not perfect, IMO. Mode and map voting is most problematic in the Group Queue, where big teams abuse it a lot. In Solo-Q, I have no issue with voting. My opinion would be to remove voting from Group Queue entirely, while leaving Solo-Q with voting system.

El Bandito, on 08 November 2015 - 02:40 AM, said:

Your poll is not perfect, IMO. Mode and map voting is most problematic in the Group Queue, where big teams abuse it a lot. In Solo-Q, I have no issue with voting. My opinion would be to remove voting from Group Queue entirely, while leaving Solo-Q with voting system.

The poll is nowhere near perfect. It took me all of 6 seconds to screw it up by making a sock puppet account.

Maybe change the value of a group vote depending on the size of the group? Larger the group the less your vote counts for? Maybe change the minimum group size in group queue to 4? Maybe change group queue so only groups of 4, 8, 12 are allowed? Each Lance gets a vote instead of each individual? The smaller the Lance the more votes you get?

[Yardsail]

I like the ability to vote but i believe it should be adjusted. For example Should only be 2 maps of the same type Hot and Hot or Cold and Cold. Game mode is a lost cause because there is only 3 in total, the vote will always be against say conquest.

[Unnatural Growth]

The problem with voting is, it takes away all the pressure on PGI to actually FIX anything. Players don't like a certain game mode for *reasons*, so they don't play it. In fact certain game modes (not naming names... *cough, cough... conquest...cough, cough* ), were a virtual ghost town on the servers. Now, PGI can say, "hey look, the players are getting what they ask for (voting), so they always get the games they want. This is great."

Instead of diving into the reasons why any certain game mode is unpopular, or unplayed, and making serious changes to the mode (or modes), aka: rewards, role warefare, etc, etc. They can fall back on the excuse that the players are getting to play the game modes that they want, so no actions are required on their part.

Now I freely admit that I can't stand Conquest Mode. Not in it's current form anyway. I have my reasons, but they are mine alone. That DOESN'T mean that the guys who like/love Conquest shouldn't get to play that mode, if they want to. As it sits now, the Conquest guys are getting hosed.


The ultimate solution would be for PGI to reinvent the mode so 80% of the player base doesn't think it sux @ZZ, new/different reward system, role warfare + good rewards for such, etc, tear down and incinerate the Paulconomy, etc. But it looks like to me that PGI has taken the path of least resistance and "fixed" it by popular vote. That's great if you're in the majority, but it sure sucks for the guys in the minority, and they play and spend money too there PGI. I may not like the mode, but I feel for the guys who do, and are getting locked out of playing it.

Same goes for maps and map voting. They have effectively "fixed" the maps, by just letting the majority vote for the "best" ( whatever that means, their opinions really) maps that support the meta flavor of the day. So now, maybe I get to play 2 or 3 maps a day.


And there's no F'n way that wait times are shorter. B.S. When you add in the extra "voting" time, then still have the ready up screen, etc, wait times are at least as long, if not longer than before. Just a solid lose-lose all the way around.

[Livestick]

OldOrgandonor, on 08 November 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:

And there's no F'n way that wait times are shorter. B.S. When you add in the extra "voting" time, then still have the ready up screen, etc, wait times are at least as long, if not longer than before. Just a solid lose-lose all the way around.

In my experience, it's longer because it takes as long for the MM to find you a match and put you in the voting screen as it took it to launch you into a match before. I might get into a game faster than before once in every 20 or 30 games. Honestly, I'd rather have to wait an extra 20 seconds every 20 or 30 games and have a little more variety instead of playing skirmish on Frozen City, Canyon Network, or HPG Uplink and nothing else.

[Darwins Dog]

I'm more in favor of faster matches with a smaller skill gap. To that end, I like the game mode voting. Hard locked choices split the community up more and make it harder to get even matches in a timely manner.

If it's going to stay, then we NEED better and more meaningful game modes. I'm a little baffled by the number of people who don't like one mode or another. They are so similar, and nearly always end the same way: with a brawl in the designated brawling area. Mode selection is nearly meaningless IMO.

Map selection should go. After all of the effort to balance large groups, this gives them another advantage. Groups that stack lasers can vote cold maps, ERLL/Gauss can vote for big/open maps, ballistic groups can vote for hot maps. The bigger the group, the more easily they can dictate what map gets played.

EDIT:

Antecursor Venatus, on 08 November 2015 - 03:04 AM, said:

If this is indeed the reason for the voting system (with it´s obvious drawbacks), why not just go fully random?

This would be the ideal solution, but you can't give players a choice and then take it away. There would not be nearly this much rage if we never had a choice to begin with.

Edited by Darwins Dog, 08 November 2015 - 07:57 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

It sucks, remove it, if you want me to spend money P.G.I

Edited by Cathy, 08 November 2015 - 07:59 AM.

[Foust]

Rejarial Galatan, on 07 November 2015 - 09:28 PM, said:

foust i think you are daft sir.

There is a good chance that I am daft, but I know we wont see another game mode unless mode voting stays in some form or it goes all random without any player say in the matter at all.

I have been swayed by some of the posts here however. I still want the voting system to stay, but I believe I agree with those who have said to combine a game mode with a map. That way you might still vote for frozen city night, but its on conquest. Perhaps you really want to play assault but the only assault is on terra therma.

The mode selections could even be weighted to favor the least picked mode over a period of time. Then perhaps you start seeing 2 or 3 of the maps coming up with conquest as the choice. Then as more conquest is played it starts tapering off due to the same system.

[Hawk_eye]

Darwins Dog, on 08 November 2015 - 07:52 AM, said:

EDIT:


This would be the ideal solution, but you can't give players a choice and then take it away. There would not be nearly this much rage if we never had a choice to begin with.

Sometimes you just have to do what is the right thing and stick to it.

Explain the reasons why you do it to the community (preferably with numbers to back-up the decision, like:

"Our voting system showed that 20% of the votes were for conquest, 35% for assault and 45% for skirmish, and thus we will randomize the modes in a way, that will reflect those percentages (i.e. 45% of the matches will be skirmish, 35% will be assault and 20% will be conquest).
Of all maps, Terra was voted for only 1.5% and Bog only 2.5%, so we will re-work those maps so they will appeal more to the community, while the other maps will be randomized according to the votes for the various maps
We will add voting from time to time in order to check if the community´s preferences have changed."

If the reasoning is sound, the backlash shouldn´t be too bad.

Of course there will still be rage on the forums, but after a week or two things will settle down.

P.s.: I realize that it is easy for me to say that, since it isn´t _my_ game/job/money that´s on the line here, but what better time to put complete randomness for mode/map than now _before_ going to Steam (well aside from not putting a choice in in the first place).
_After_ Steam, such a move would probably be suicide.

Edit: Numbers pulled out of my backside, obviously

Edited by Antecursor Venatus, 08 November 2015 - 08:25 AM.

[Grothaus]

"While it’s true that this new system will mean that players who have previously chosen to de-select a specific game mode will now sometimes need to play the game mode they would have otherwise never played, we feel that this change is the right choice going forward." - November Roadmap

So was the elimination of Conquest intentional?

Considering the player population is at the root of this voting system, and adding more game modes, which would be a good thing will only increase wait times further which is bad thing. Its hard to figure out a compromise that would appeal to everyone and be good for the future of MWO.

Removing Conquest from the game (which is practically what this latest patch has done) at this point isnt the right choice, not until theres a better alternative then just playing Skirmish over and over, or just playing CW, which has become stale and repetitive for alot of players.

My solution would be this, at least for the time being, until new game modes can be added.

Remove either Skirmish or Assault, they are both practically the same game mode, 99% of assault matches dont involve base capping, even though the option is there, so I think eliminating Skirmish would make more sense, but either or.

Include Conquest and Assault matches under the larger umbrella of Community Warfare, effectively making every match a CW match.

To take over a planet, players would have to not only take out the orbital cannons on the planet (Classic CW), but also capture the planets main resource capabilities (Conquest), and also fight for the land/cities (Assault).

Eventually when another game mode is added it would fall under the CW umbrella with the others. There would be alot of kinks to work out with a system like this, but consolidating all matches and players under the CW umbrella would be better for the longterm health of the game.

[CainenEX]

I actually like the voting system. Maybe change it to voting for the map and game mode as a combination.


If it's very unpopular and they have to change it then I think they should scrap the game mode and map selection altogether and let RNG determine what you get. It will eliminate the wait times and keep people happy.

I do NOT want game mode filters to come back.

Edited by CainenEX, 08 November 2015 - 11:29 AM.

[Simbacca]

Cathy, on 08 November 2015 - 07:58 AM, said:

It sucks, remove it, if you want me to spend money P.G.I

Exactly. And this is a large reason why I am not buying the Rifleman pack.


Disclosure: Before The Vote System I purchased Lots of MC, Overlord Phoenix Pack, Sabre Pack Add On, Clan Invasion Wave 1 and 2 top tiers, Clan Invasion Wave 3 up to the Heavy, Resistance a la carte Grasshopper, Resistance 2 a la carte Mauler, Marauder Pack top tier, and Warhammer Pack top tier.

[SoulReaver7500]

As to map voting, this is a failure, I like fighting all maps HOT or COLD. Controlling your heat is part of the game.

I have a Capture Accelerator module that is TOTALLY USELESS now as I can't choose those games and it makes no sense at all to load it for a Skirmish game. I paid 6 million C-Bills for it.

I have dumped all of my mechs that were built for Conquest or Assault. I now run a Dire Wolf designed for massive damage and head on fighting. All of my other mechs were rendered useless by this voting patch.

People playing on map modes they hate DO NOT PERFORM. They do whatever they can to get out ASAP in order to get to a map mode they do like. Disconnect, Suicide, Kamikaze or whatever. These players are hurting the matches they are forced to join by their low damage and early deaths.

I hate running the same map 5 times in a row in a game mode that I will no longer play. If it isn't Skirmish, it is garbage.I miss Terra Therma. Removing the map voting will bring back more equal game play.

28% of the people want this voting to stay because it shortens their game load times. It is fair to penalize the other 70% because of them? No.

Maps need to go back to random with no voting in order to bring back variety to these matches.

Over 70% of the people want the Map mode Filters back. Right now, this is how map modes are chosen:
Skirmish/Conquest show up? Skirmish.
Skirmish/Assault show up? Skirmish.
Assault/Conquest show up? Assault.

The only way Conquest or Assault mode is chosen, is when it IS FORCED DOWN OUR THROATS.

Conquest mode under this voting system is 100% dead. Assault mode would be as well if it wasn't forced upon us.

If PGI creates a Game Mode that people like, they are going to flock to it. No need to force it down their throats.


Is this patch enough to to hurt PGI financially? Yes it is.

Consider the possible financial reprecussions of this voting patch.

Let's assume that MechWarrior Online has around 2 million registered accounts with around 25,000 active in any given month.

This last patch has the following:
28% (7500 users) approval rate on the Game Mode Voting part
Skirmish
Assault
Conquest
72% (17,500 users) Disapproval on the Game Mode Voting part
Skirmish
Assault
Conquest

Keep Current Voting system

26.64% Map and Mode voting should stay (Keep voting as is)


Remove Game Mode Voting

16.36% Only Map voting should stay (Remove Game Mode Voting)
55.61% I think BOTH Map and Mode voting should be REMOVED (All Voting Removed)
-1.40% Only Game Mode voting should stay (Keep Game Mode Voting)
___________
70.57%

16.36 + 55.61 - 1.40 = 70.57%

Assuming that you get 10% of the users to buy a $100 package
25,000 users * 10% * $100 = $250,000 gross income per month.

Now, you have 70% of your active user base enraged because of the last patch and they are not going to buy anything. Out of your gross monthly income of $250,000, you have just lost $175,000 leaving you with a measly $75,000 per month.

How long can MechWarrior Online afford to lose that 70% profit?

How many paying customers can PGI afford to lose? I see people all over the forums saying that they are leaving or refusing to buy anything more until this is resolved.

PGI is at fault here and needs to address this issue quickly

Edited by SoulReaver7500, 08 November 2015 - 12:51 PM.

[Sjorpha]

I voted to remove both.

Important distinction is that I do NOT want them to put game mode select back in as that was the reason they couldn't add more game modes.

I think some of the people voting to remove both have the idea that game mode select should then return. It's important to remember that option is off the table as per PGIs own explanation, can't split the queue any longer.

All maps and modes should simply be random, and then new game modes added. Maximum variety, and no player control as that decreases MM quality.

[C E Dwyer]

CainenEX, on 08 November 2015 - 11:28 AM, said:

I actually like the voting system. Maybe change it to voting for the map and game mode as a combination.


If it's very unpopular and they have to change it then I think they should scrap the game mode and map selection altogether and let RNG determine what you get. It will eliminate the wait times and keep people happy.

I do NOT want game mode filters to come back.

I think totally random is the best, its not perfect but its fair, mode filters were so so, I never unticked any, though direwolf pilots objected if I left conquest up

Edited by Cathy, 08 November 2015 - 12:14 PM.