191 replies to this topic

[Mazzyplz]

mode voting did have the potential to alleviate some issues.

map voting was russ pandering to a few people who dont like fog, who cry about cockpit glass.

i am the type of player who turns on the glass, gets in a foggy map and carries the match; but i guess people want to make up excuses like low visibility to explain why they got served.

that's just the way i feel; but what i feel is worst is that this changes the builds used to hpg/frozen city influenced builds;
and it takes away from the game in the battlefield.

it just is not fun when 24 mechs run the same weapon. it takes away fun from the engagement.
people should not be able to sync their map to their build either because that just favors some types of build and more than half the fun of this game is using the mechlab.

there should be encouragement to run all sorts of weapons; not just lasers like the voting system does now;
i mean it was lasers before but now i HOPE YOU LIKE LASERSSSSS

many people who cannot figure out the mechlab just go online and download a build. which can work - for instance there is only 1 way to build an ac5 dragon. but that's the extent to which they think about these things

Edited by Mazzyplz, 12 November 2015 - 06:28 PM.

[zudukai]

Mazzyplz, on 12 November 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

... but what i feel is worst is that this changes the builds used to hpg/frozen city influenced builds;
and it takes away from the game in the battlefield.

it just is not fun when 24 mechs run the same weapon. it takes away fun from the engagement.
people should not be able to sync their map to their build either because that just favors some types of build and more than half the fun of this game is using the mechlab.

there should be encouragement to run all sorts of weapons; not just lasers like the voting system does now;
i mean it was lasers before but now i HOPE YOU LIKE LASERSSSSS

many people who cannot figure out the mechlab just go online and download a build. which can work - for instance there is only 1 way to build an ac5 dragon. but that's the extent to which they think about these things

is the mechlab that foreign to the player? or complex?

i know people run the meta lasers a lot, but that cannot be the underline issue, is it?

with all the help there is on the mechlab, nobody should be afraid of it...

[Wing 0]

im surprised this thread is still going. already over 400 votes. PGI you got some explaining to do.

[bar10jim]

Here's an idea: instead of random maps, how about each server randomizes a list of all the maps, then steps through the maps. Not one-at-a-time, but each map is the setting for ALL games launched in a 3 minute window, then on to the next map for 3 minutes. After the entire list is finished, the list is randomoized again, lather rinse, repeat. Each server can be on its own list. If PGI wants to weight particular maps more heavily, they could increase the window in which that map starts games from 3 minutes to 5 minutes. Theoretically, it is still random, but you're not gonna get tourmaline 4 games in a row.

Edited by bar10jim, 12 November 2015 - 11:14 PM.

[no one]

Bloody hell. . . Keep map and mode voting in but ALSO let people opt out of certain modes. If someone cares that much, let them play what they want to play. Your map search times don't suffer more from that than not having those people playing at all.

Ideally, have your active clients tell your server the preference averages of your online players so you can be queuing appropriate ratios of each game mode / map. That's much more fair and less prone to the problems inherent in a system run by majority rule.

[Grothaus]

PeeWrinkle, on 12 November 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

I also feel I should point out that PGI does a great job of listening to the community. And many community members do a good job with constructive criticism. Not 8!tching, but actually providing feedback.

listening maybe

responding,.... ehh, not so much. (at least from my limited experience)

maybe PGI normally does a great job of listening, but they sure as hell havent done a good job as far as this issue is concerned. And im only assuming their listening atm.

Even if PGI came in and said, Nope, not changing a thing, it would be something, then i could at least get some ******* closure, feels like im in a bad relationship

I will probably patch and play this weekend, only for the CW event, then ill go back to waiting, because honestly, CW gets old real quick.... interested in seeing what phase 3 of CW will add.

until then, give me my Conquest back!

[Gemini Bull]

since the new "setup", i never got conquest until an hour before this post of mine. map voting im fine with. mode voting needs to go. i have mechs that do good ONLY in conquest. now they are useless to me. i like conquest, and i want to play it more. thats what i think anyways. this is coming from a veteran player too.

[Sorero]

I'd like to give my opinion after several days with the new system passed. First of all I want to say, that I like a voting option. And compared to the days before matchmaking seems to be faster for me (this might also depend on where you live and the time you play). But the current voting system should be changed/optimized. A lot of ideas have been given. I hope some we will see in the game.

First: Voting for a game mode should go. With only 3 game modes available this is not usefull.
Second: Reduce the number of maps to vote for to two. AND include a system, that balances the number each map gets choosen. (So if the most chosen map is Frozen City, this map is not shown for the next time.) This should balance selected maps better - but it's not completly random.
Optional: Do not show percentages

Map voting is a nice idea. There are maps played quite often and maps rarely choosen. And there are reasons for this. I think Frozen city is the most selected map, because it is cold. On the other hand Tourmaline Desert is not so rare, even if it's hot. The question is why are some maps so rare and how you might improve them to make them better playable/more attractive. Some maps might work with some game modes better (imagine Terra Therma in conquest mode with no capture point in that volcano but all of them spread around).

[Lunatic_Asylum]

I disagree that map voting is a nice idea as it hinders playing all of the maps with equal chances, and some of us may favor 2 or 4 that will be, even with changes to the voting system, will be less frequent, let alone frequent with the game mode type that is least favorite (I love Terra Therma Conquest: how many times have you encountered that?)

Now, please revert the change. I miss getting anything like the CW weekend challenge, as I do not want to play a game that is completely broken otherwise.

The November 17 roadmap helps nothing but only roots the broken voting system in the game.

Edited by Lunatic_Asylum, 15 November 2015 - 11:53 AM.

[Star Dust]

This may have been said, and I apologize if I missed it, but if map / mode voting is to stay I recommend it be implemented the same way Guild Wars 2 (and perhaps other games as well) does it. This method is explained here.

Players select their choice, and rather than majority wins, then a weighted roll is applied. That way there is still a chance the minority players will get the opportunities to play on their selection and there is more variety of play.

[TheArisen]

There are some changes coming in the Nov. 17th patch to the voting system.

Here's a thread & poll about those changes.
http://mwomercs.com/...es-good-or-bad/

[Hawk_eye]

TheArisen, on 16 November 2015 - 04:45 PM, said:

There are some changes coming in the Nov. 17th patch to the voting system.

Here's a thread & poll about those changes.
http://mwomercs.com/...es-good-or-bad/

Yes, but from what I read, it´s totally open to abuse, due to the votes being displayed.

Say I am one of those who only wants to play skrimish on cold maps.
I vote for those, but because I am part of the majority, I see early on that I will get that map/mode anyway (yes, votes are displayed)
So I change my vote to a hot map and assault/conquest.
I still get cold/skirmish, but my vote-weight goes up.
I keep doing this until it looks as if I would _really_ get a hot map and assault/conquest, so I keep my (now heavily weighted) vote on cold/skirmish and I get what I want.

Second, it is needlessly complicated. Keeping track of every player´s vote and results of said vote.
Just make it random, influenced by the vote, like @raarz and a bunch of other forumites suggested.

Its easy, it gives everyone a chance to play what he wants and it _still_ keeps the illusion of having a choice.

Of course, if the objective is to get fast match-making, just do away with all that nonsense and go full random.
But then, there is a saying in German: "Warum einfach wenn es auch kompliziert geht?" (Why easy when you can make it complicated?)

[TheArisen]

Indeed there are two things that should be done with voting.

1. Players can't see what others are voting for.

2. The outcome is randomized, but weighted depending on the vote.

Voting was supposed to help wait times, perhaps after steam launch we'll be able to go back to it being totally random. I do really like the combat cinematics though...

[SoulReaver7500]

Perhaps the real solution here is to let the players decide on their settings if they want voting.... Instead of letting 25% of the whiners run the show.

[boxbox]

I posted this in patch feedback forum but i'm putting it here too because some people don't read everything. I was thinking to myself 'How this could get better?'

Does anyone remember contracts in MW1?


What if when you hit quick play each tier would have 2-4 (depending on current volume) randomly generated contracts with map and style already picked(no timer). You could see how many people were in each contract. If you wanted to go now and didn't mind which map you could select the one with 23/24 players. Maps and styles that got played less would offer a higher C-bill reward. You wouldn't be locked into a game until it hit 24 players then it would automatically launch. Since we are all in the same tier it would just divide the mechs into 2 generally equal piles...


This is probably gonna piss off the CW people (and I saw someone else posted a similar idea above). I would love it if they limited quick play to skirmish (for all those fps lovers) and made CW a single mech drop with the above stated contract system with added playing styles (attack, defend, escort etc..)

Edited by boxbox, 19 November 2015 - 01:21 AM.

[Herr Vorragend]

The biggest problem with the old system (random maps, gamemode toggle) was, that you might get a map totally bad for your chosen mech. E.G. getting alpine with a short-range assault mech. Or getting terra therma with a laserboat.

With the map voting added players tend to choose cooler maps and/or maps with pretty good visibility. I haven´t played forest colony for about two weeks, because the map never got enough votes. Take that as a fact.

The problem isn´t the maps. The problem is having the wrong mech-configs for the maps.
What we need (in my eyes) is the possibility to choose the mech to drop in AFTER having the map determined to play on.

Let me give you an example and let´s discuss the idea:
We go back to toggled gamemodes, so that we get some levels of the pain and toxic out. Then it can be open, whether a mapvoting remains implemented or not. But what we need is the ability to choose the "best fitting" mech for the given map (and mode).

How could we do that?
- players tag up to four mechs in their hangar for every class (so the matching could also return to a 3/3/3/3, when wished)
- players build a CW-like dropdeck within a certain tonnage (e.g. one mech of every class)
- players tag four mechs in their hangar with no restrictions (3x assault, 1x heavy possible as well as 2x light, 2x medium)
- players with too few mechs get trials to choose, too.

When the map is determined on which the battle will take place players have 15 seconds to choose their ride.
What do you think?

[Hawk_eye]

Herr Vorragend, on 20 November 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

The biggest problem with the old system (random maps, gamemode toggle) was, that you might get a map totally bad for your chosen mech. E.G. getting alpine with a short-range assault mech. Or getting terra therma with a laserboat.

With the map voting added players tend to choose cooler maps and/or maps with pretty good visibility. I haven´t played forest colony for about two weeks, because the map never got enough votes. Take that as a fact.

The problem isn´t the maps. The problem is having the wrong mech-configs for the maps.
What we need (in my eyes) is the possibility to choose the mech to drop in AFTER having the map determined to play on.

Let me give you an example and let´s discuss the idea:
We go back to toggled gamemodes, so that we get some levels of the pain and toxic out. Then it can be open, whether a mapvoting remains implemented or not. But what we need is the ability to choose the "best fitting" mech for the given map (and mode).

How could we do that?
- players tag up to four mechs in their hangar for every class (so the matching could also return to a 3/3/3/3, when wished)
- players build a CW-like dropdeck within a certain tonnage (e.g. one mech of every class)
- players tag four mechs in their hangar with no restrictions (3x assault, 1x heavy possible as well as 2x light, 2x medium)
- players with too few mechs get trials to choose, too.

When the map is determined on which the battle will take place players have 15 seconds to choose their ride.
What do you think?

Completely disagree with that.

You would have somewhat of a point, if stock mechs were randomly assigned to players. But in MWO, you choose your mech and you choose your load-out.
So you can either build a mech that gives you top performance on a few maps (but gets crushed on most others) or you build a more "generalist" mech, that does reasonably well on most/all maps.

If you choose to go for the former then don´t come to me complaining, after your laser-vomit build got crushed on Terra Therma.

At least for me, one of the challenges of MWO is, that I _don´t_ know, what map and mode I will be thrown in (yes, I´m in full favor of completely randomizing map/mode) and to have to
1) build my mechs accordingly and
2) adapt, improvise, overcome

Granted, I am struggling _hard_ with 2), but well, that´s why it´s called a challenge (Kennedy´s "we choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard" comes to mind)

[Lipster]

Please for the love of all that is holy, get rid of voting for game type. I don't care about voting or random for maps as much. But playing conquest when I don't enjoy the game mode make me want to take my money elsewhere. Why do you care PGI as long as I am enjoying part of your game and spending money?

[wicm]

Bump...for PGI.

[Blood Skar]

wicm, on 24 November 2015 - 12:49 AM, said:

Bump...for PGI.

I don't think they are listening bud.

22% only want the voting left how it is. Interesting.
Personally, I voted to keep map voting.

Whats most interesting is the amount that want voting removed completely... 2 in 3 players approx.

I'd be willing to change my vote to remove completely if it meant i could select game mode again. (I dont mind what map i play at all to be honest - but its nice having some kind of selection on that).

Edited by Blood Skar, 24 November 2015 - 01:06 AM.