191 replies to this topic

[Poggle]

Remove it - all of it - removes game content and does nothing to develop people.

[Mazzyplz]

Poggle, on 09 November 2015 - 01:23 PM, said:

Remove it - all of it - removes game content and does nothing to develop people.

it's worse than that, it actually makes incompetent mechwarriors who cannot deal with heat, limited visibility - etc.

you know, like the people who want voting to stay

[SevenUpMan]

My take on this is that the map voting system should be changed in such a way that similar maps should be offered. Like one round offers hot maps, the next round offers cold maps, the one after that offers maps with average temps... It actually could work:

Hot Maps: Terra Therma (95°C), Caustic Valley (85°C), Tourmaline Desert (97°C) and to some extent Viridian Bog (38°C).

Medium Temp: Canyon Network (28°C), Crimson Strait (24°C), Forest Colony (30°C), River City (26°C), The Mining Collective (22°C)

Cold Maps: Alpine Peaks (-18°C), Frozen City (-85°C), Frozen City Night (-85°C), HPG Manifold (-10°C)

I'll send this suggestion to the devs themselves, hope they'll consider it.

[Mazzyplz]

SevenUpMan, on 10 November 2015 - 12:52 AM, said:

My take on this is that the map voting system should be changed in such a way that similar maps should be offered. Like one round offers hot maps, the next round offers cold maps, the one after that offers maps with average temps... It actually could work:

Hot Maps: Terra Therma (95°C), Caustic Valley (85°C), Tourmaline Desert (97°C) and to some extent Viridian Bog (38°C).

Medium Temp: Canyon Network (28°C), Crimson Strait (24°C), Forest Colony (30°C), River City (26°C), The Mining Collective (22°C)

Cold Maps: Alpine Peaks (-18°C), Frozen City (-85°C), Frozen City Night (-85°C), HPG Manifold (-10°C)

I'll send this suggestion to the devs themselves, hope they'll consider it.

the problem with that is that people can still pick LRMS and choose alpine, canyon, and valley OVER AND OVER in your proposal. players of MWO have already proven in the past that this is a definite possibility

light mechs with narc and 9 lrm boats. FUN???

it would be even worse than what we have now

[Capt Stern]

The chatoic nature of the original random map selection is/was fair and treats all players equally. It makes your loadout either good or suck, and thats how the randomness should be.

The map vote system forces players to play what the majority of the masses want, which is not fair and equal. It also causes many maps to just never get played.

I refuse to play anymore, because of how much HPG Manifold is forced upon me. I hate the map, but it was fair that i played it when randomly selected. Now I get it 90% of the time.

Edited by Capt Stern, 10 November 2015 - 01:48 AM.

[Lord Auriel]

exactly. Also notice how we, the haters of the voting system, again and again state that we are happy with randomness and being forced to play something we don't like or maps we despise from time to time, because that is our sacrifice to the common good - everyone being treated equal. So far I have met a lot of voting lovers who say that those underdog maps are **** anyway, and that conquest is plain stupid. Well, that's an opinion but now they have the power to force it upon a minority playerbase that is essentially unhappy and will have to sacrifice 80-90% of what they like.

The winners of this system are 1) ppl who don't care anyway and just wanna "shoot the robots", 2) Egomaniacs who "refuse to play conquest!!", 3) Group queue unit drops who can force their meta upon the enemy team by voting for a game mode an mapd that suits their loadout.


Can someone please explain to me why this is "fair" and why it is "good"?

Pls note that I am against opt-out like it was before the patch. it really should all be random for the matchmaker's sake. That means I have to play skirmish but that's fine, I like variety and also a lot of ppl like skirmish so I respect that

[Leopardo]

again - the vote system r GOOD but we must have 20+maps and we must choose from 2 maps and no game mode! (game mode select must stay as we have it before vote system on)

Edited by Leopardo, 10 November 2015 - 03:04 AM.

[Rebel Ace Fryslan]

Make it a lottery system.

Both votes should stay.
All votes count and the system will randomly pick a vote.
Most votes has the best change, but it still could be a different map/gamemode.

[p4r4g0n]

Leopardo, on 10 November 2015 - 03:03 AM, said:

again - the vote system r GOOD but we must have 20+maps and we must choose from 2 maps and no game mode! (game mode select must stay as we have it before vote system on)

You are obviously missing the point of why this voting thingy was implemented.

[Alexander Carlile]

Just make like CW were you get a choice between 4 mechs acording to the map

[Lord Auriel]

Alexander Carlile, on 10 November 2015 - 04:41 AM, said:

Just make like CW were you get a choice between 4 mechs acording to the map

Nooooooooo. No, no, no, no.

[Stella HeadStar]

Alexander Carlile, on 10 November 2015 - 04:41 AM, said:

Just make like CW were you get a choice between 4 mechs acording to the map

To develop your idea: you claim a tonnage of a Mech and when you will know on which map you'll be dropped - just choose among your Long/Multi/Brawler/Hot/Cold builds.

Edited by Stella HeadStar, 10 November 2015 - 05:53 AM.

[Mazzyplz]

Stella HeadStar, on 10 November 2015 - 05:52 AM, said:

To develop your idea: you claim a tonnage of a Mech and when you will know on which map you'll be dropped - just choose among your Long/Multi/Brawler/Hot/Cold builds.

that sucks. more excuses so you're not put out of your comfort zone
so what does this do? every time you hit a certain map you fight all gauss builds

this would be like what we have now, except maybe even more annoying

[xengk]

I like the voting feature but I also like playing on terra therma.

Propose adding weight to each map, the more a map is played the less likely that map is selected to display as among the 4 choice. Map weighting is already an existing feature in the game where PGI use to promote new map.
Overtime, popular maps will become rare and the other maps will get to be played more until their weight balance out.
Alternative, PGI can reset the map weight biweekly or monthly on patch day.

As for game mode, make it system random with no voting.
Player get to vote the map, but not the mode.

Another fix is allow 1 team to choose the map, and the opposing team to choose the game mode.

[Mazzyplz]

xengk, on 10 November 2015 - 10:50 AM, said:

I like the voting feature but I also like playing on terra therma.

Propose adding weight to each map, the more a map is played the less likely that map is selected to display as among the 4 choice. Map weighting is already an existing feature in the game where PGI use to promote new map.
Overtime, popular maps will become rare and the other maps will get to be played more until their weight balance out.
Alternative, PGI can reset the map weight biweekly or monthly on patch day.

As for game mode, make it system random with no voting.
Player get to vote the map, but not the mode.

Another fix is allow 1 team to choose the map, and the opposing team to choose the game mode.

that's not such a bad idea. i'd rather they would remove voting; but this is the second best thing

[Hawk_eye]

Myke Pantera, on 07 November 2015 - 02:10 PM, said:

Both should stay, but with the following changes:

• Votes only determine likelyhood. As long as at least one person votes Terra Therma or Conquest there should be a 1/24% chance for Terra/Conquest to happen (provided that all players voted)
  
• Don't show the current voting status while voting is still active, to avoid snowball effects

I´d like to bring this suggestion to everyone´s attention again, because, IMO, it´s the best suggestion I have seen anywhere on the forums.
If 65% of the player-base wants to play skirmish, 20% wants to play assault and 15% wants to play conquest, the 65% majority will _still_ mostly play skirmish, but the other two groups will _also_ play their favored mode once in a while.
Same with maps, sure, the currently favored one will be played most often, but the other maps will retain at least a chance of being played too.

And from what I read (I don´t play groups), this could also fix the "big group loads up on gauss and then votes for Terra Therma" problem, because even if only a part of the other team has laser builds, there will be a reasonable chance for "big team" to have to play on Frozen Citiy or another cold map.

In short, it gives the player-base the ability to express a _preference_ but leaves in some uncertainty, which, IMO, is a good thing.

[Mazzyplz]

my own suggestion is to vote to exclude maps you don't want to play;
so if many people vote against therma then no chance of playin therma; but equal chance of another 3 maps

[TheArisen]

Personally I like the the voting system but all the hate for it makes me wonder if it should be kept.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Herr Vorragend]

@TheArisen: You call forcing others to play what they don´t like "nice things"?
Strange form of masochism...

[Stella HeadStar]

Mazzyplz, on 10 November 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

that sucks. more excuses so you're not put out of your comfort zone
so what does this do? every time you hit a certain map you fight all gauss builds

this would be like what we have now, except maybe even more annoying

It's called not a comfort zone, but logic! When you are going to drop your mercenary unit to a planet you should study the climate, relief and all the information about the battlefield. Knowing of all these details, will help you configure your Mechs and fullfil the lances with a proper fighters. I don't want to agonize on the Hot-Brawler, dropped on the hot plain surface - this is folly!