96 replies to this topic

[Kjudoon]

Encapsulation of the issue. 4 kids decide they want to play a board game. 2 want to play Monopoly. One wants to play Risk and one wants to play Life. They all vote and half are happy but half are not quite so happy. The one who wanted to play Life just decides to play because he doesnt care too strongly. The one who wanted to play risk HATES Monopoly but would have tolerated Life. But since that was not selected he decides to go home leaving them to play with only 3.

You can say its whining all you want. It is an issue on how someone is going to spend their free time. And if those three just continue to play Monopoly everytime because it is a 2-1 vote. Soon that last person that stayed will leave just like the one who went to find new friends to play Risk with if they do not get to play Life every once in a while, too.

If you cannot see the Risk of a majority enforced Monopoly you Risk losing the players for the game of Life as well.

Edit for clarity and phone mistypes.

Edited by Kjudoon, 10 November 2015 - 05:14 AM.

[Clint Steel]

Troutmonkey, on 09 November 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

51% vote for Skirmish
49% vote for anything else

49% of people are unhappy every game.
...

That's not quite true, just because the Map/Mode I voted for doesn't get picked, doesn't mean I'm unhappy.

[JigglyMoobs]

Fenrisulvyn, on 09 November 2015 - 07:28 PM, said:

I would rather just have random modes and maps.

PGI is catering to the "zerg" crowd that want Flat Cold Skirmish to grind out cbills faster.

I don't want to work the game, I want to play the game.

Not really. Part of the reason to go to a map vote (besides the fact that people like some maps more than others) was that this could favor more diverse builds because people could customize builds to bet on getting a certain map on voting.

For example, if I didn't know what map will come up next, I'd take laser meta everytime. But if I knew that I could get Alpine, I might decide on Gauss ERPPC, or ER LL, or dual Gauss, or, gasp, LRMs.

If I knew that I could get terra therma, I might choose a cooler running ballistics build instead of the meta. On Caustic brawling could possibly be viable if I had enough SRM hit reg, etc.

So, instead of just selecting a map based on: I like this, people might take non-meta builds and select a map based on what they've taken.

The problem is two fold:

1. Some maps are just worse than others. On Viridian and Caustic you get stuck on everything. ON Forest Colony people don't like the low visibility. On Terra Therma the design of the central area makes it really feast or famine depending on how well you luck out on the team lottery. So people who really hate those aspects of those maps vote against them every time.

2. The voting system doesn't give players enough control over map selection to justify a specialized build. That's better done via a drop deck where you can figure what you are taking after a map is selected. Of course, in this case you have to pre-select weight class to have match maker function properly. But then, in a given weight class, you might have a sniper build, a meta build, a pop tart build and a brawling build. You can then take what you want and we would then see more diverse weapons selection than the current LAZORS!!! meta.

[AEgg]

JigglyMoobs, on 09 November 2015 - 08:20 PM, said:

Not really. Part of the reason to go to a map vote (besides the fact that people like some maps more than others) was that this could favor more diverse builds because people could customize builds to bet on getting a certain map on voting.

For example, if I didn't know what map will come up next, I'd take laser meta everytime. But if I knew that I could get Alpine, I might decide on Gauss ERPPC, or ER LL, or dual Gauss, or, gasp, LRMs.

If I knew that I could get terra therma, I might choose a cooler running ballistics build instead of the meta. On Caustic brawling could possibly be viable if I had enough SRM hit reg, etc.

So, instead of just selecting a map based on: I like this, people might take non-meta builds and select a map based on what they've taken.

The problem is two fold:

1. Some maps are just worse than others. On Viridian and Caustic you get stuck on everything. ON Forest Colony people don't like the low visibility. On Terra Therma the design of the central area makes it really feast or famine depending on how well you luck out on the team lottery. So people who really hate those aspects of those maps vote against them every time.

2. The voting system doesn't give players enough control over map selection to justify a specialized build. That's better done via a drop deck where you can figure what you are taking after a map is selected. Of course, in this case you have to pre-select weight class to have match maker function properly. But then, in a given weight class, you might have a sniper build, a meta build, a pop tart build and a brawling build. You can then take what you want and we would then see more diverse weapons selection than the current LAZORS!!! meta.

Allowing significant control over your loadout just pushes even more toward boating, which is one of the biggest problems any mechwarrior game has to deal with. Why encourage it?

If weapons were reasonably balanced, there would be a downside to taking all of the same thing, in that it wouldn't work very well in certain circumstances (an SRM build on an Alpine match that devolves into sniping, for example). Preventing map selection gives players at least a small reason to take some backup weapons or a varied loadout. That is, it would if we didn't have weapons that are the best at everything...

[JigglyMoobs]

AEgg, on 09 November 2015 - 08:34 PM, said:

Allowing significant control over your loadout just pushes even more toward boating, which is one of the biggest problems any mechwarrior game has to deal with. Why encourage it?

You have perfect control over your loadout right now and complete boating. You really can't go more. The "problem" being addressed is not boating, which is its own can of worms, but diversity and boredom with everyone having a laser build, which is something that almost everybody gets onboard with.

Quote

If weapons were reasonably balanced, there would be a downside to taking all of the same thing, in that it wouldn't work very well in certain circumstances (an SRM build on an Alpine match that devolves into sniping, for example). Preventing map selection gives players at least a small reason to take some backup weapons or a varied loadout. That is, it would if we didn't have weapons that are the best at everything...

The reason for taking the same thing is:
1. Simplicity.
2. Overmatch in a particular set of circumstances.

Simplicity frees people to spend more time thinking about other aspects of the game, such as how to engineer circumstances to achieve overmatch. Diversity (eg, taking short, medium, and long range weapons) results in overmatch in nothing.

If you brought a build that has overmatch in one set of circumstances that now look less likely, you can still adjust with tactics. On the other hand if you brought a mech with no overmatch possible, you ability to compensate with tactics are much more limited.

A lot of new people make the mistake of thinking only about builds, when tactics are actually the overriding consideration. Builds are made to fit tactics. If you can't find a winning set of tactics for a build, then it's not viable.

[Vellron2005]

I agree that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", but what PGI has gone with map voting is not catering to the many, its more like having lots of people saying they like red toenails and some saying they like black toenails, so the person who's foot it is cuts the toenails off..

Voting is ok if you have something to vote for.. but right now, we have so few maps and so few players that it effectively removes a huge chunk of the game from play. It would be a great system if we had 50 maps and 20.000 players more.. but we don't..

I liked Frozen city before I had to play it for 12 consecutive matches. Now I don't like it any more..

Players are fed up with playing THE SAME THING over and over, no mater how good it is.. So they would rather play the bad maps then play a good one for the 12th time in a row..

[oldradagast]

Right, because the best maps in the game are the cold, clear ones that allow for the "skillz" crowd to have an easier time one-shotting things with their Gauss + laser spam from halfway across the map.

People don't vote for the "best" maps - they vote for maps that are easiest for them to win on. Just more dumbing down the game for the twitch-shooter, hyper-competitive sociopaths who have to win all the time, even when the odds are stacked in their favor, so they can feel better about themselves.

If PGI wanted map data, they could just asked the forums, and simple "yes/no" votes will NOT tell them what is wrong with the maps. For example, Bog is a fine map - IF they fix the endless snags and fake stairs. But just having people not vote for it will not tell them the problems; they might end up thinking Bog needs to be cold and empty, like the other popular maps.

Finally, this change was NOT needed. Combining game modes helped balance out the game's vanishing population, but since we couldn't vote for maps before, adding that useless feature in doesn't "balance" anything out. It just effectively removes content from the game and adds yet another crutch to lean on for all the clowns who think running meta makes them skilled.

Edited by oldradagast, 10 November 2015 - 04:07 AM.

[Vellron2005]

Kjudoon, on 09 November 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

If you cannot see The Risk of a majority enforced monopoly you risk losing the players for the game of life as well.

Nice...

+1

[SpiderMom]

PholkLorr, on 09 November 2015 - 06:47 AM, said:

I ham wun of thos skrubz who finks i do better em lerger m4p so vote for crystal sand level ler ler ler

[oldradagast]

Kjudoon, on 09 November 2015 - 07:52 PM, said:

Encapsulation of the issue. 4 kids decide they want to play a board game. 2 want to play monopoly. One wants to play risk and one wants to play life. They all vote and half are happy but half are not. The one who wanted to play Life just decides to play because he doesnt care really. The one who wanted to play risk HATES Monopoly but would bave tolerated Life. But since that was not selected he decides to go home leaving them to play with only 3.
You can say its whining all you want. It is an issue on how someone is going to spend their free time. nd if those three just continue to play Monopoly everytime, soon that last person will go find new friends to play risk with. Plus 5he one who will play to be with their friends if they do not get to play Life every once in a while will leave too.
If you cannot see The Risk of a majority enforced monopoly you risk losing the players for the game of life as well.

Exactly. It is the same idiocy that killed Community warfare. Only a unified minority though the game mode was fine with its crap design: shooting gallery maps, poor payouts, endless seal-clubbing, and no proper matchmaking. While the silent majority may not have had a common vision, they certainly didn't like the current setup, but they were shouted down and told over and over again that CW is not meant to be fun - because it's "community WARfare" - and they must stick around and "git rekted." Instead, most simply opted to play in the Public Queue or a different game entirely, leaving us with a dead game format.

So, now we're trying a similar idea again, allowing for a vocal, whiny minority with a common vision - lame, repetitive games on easy mode for their meta builds - to dominate the split-up majority. Why anyone thinks this will have a different outcome than the failure in CW is beyond me; this game's population is already falling, so doing stupid things to encourage more people to leave should be off the table, not top of the list.

Edited by oldradagast, 10 November 2015 - 04:13 AM.

[TWIAFU]

AbyssalTyrant, on 09 November 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

People arent mad that people are voting.They are butt hurt that people aren't voting for what they want. Its hilariously pathetic.

Whhhhhaaaaa! People are voting for what they like to play themselves but are not voting for what I want! I will make you all PAY for not voting what I want!

Some of the funniest sh*t I have ever read around here.....

[Vellron2005]

I have a solution for all of this, (but nobody will listen anyhow), for how PGI can fix this..

Make us pick between two similar maps.. let us choose the game mode...

Invest HEAVILY into marketing and ATTRACT new players (not just on steam, but many other places, banners and such).. that would bring more people into the MM, thus cutting wait times..

AND it would bring more money into the company..

[Kjudoon]

TWIAFU, on 10 November 2015 - 04:13 AM, said:

Whhhhhaaaaa! People are voting for what they like to play themselves but are not voting for what I want! I will make you all PAY for not voting what I want!

Some of the funniest sh*t I have ever read around here.....

Whaaaaa! People won't play what I want even when I force them to so I'll report them and get them banned and that will show them!!!

>and success occurs<

... wait... why is the game population so low?

[kapusta11]

Quote

the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

What are you, a communist? Had individuals serve the needs of the many we would still live in caves.

[LookUpGaming]

.... but in this case the "hard data" does not prove that the maps that 'win' the vote are the best.

Only that of the maps given to choose from, a particular percentage of players preferred some over the others. You may get 32% voting for Canyon, 26% voting for Alpine, 10% for Terra Therma and 30% for another map.

Not to mention you can change the vote. If it looks like a game mode is a lost cause, you can let 'popular opinion' sway your choice and choose a different mode or map.......

You can do whatever the hell you want with statistics. You can arrange your hard data to show whatever the hell you want based on how you present it.

A lot of people hate playing the same 3 maps over and over again. Fact is I'd rather have a random selection of maps than having to play the same 3 most of the time. It crushes my soul to have to see the same map time after time.

Does it mean those 3 maps are better than the others? No it does not.

[TWIAFU]

Vellron2005, on 10 November 2015 - 03:49 AM, said:

Players are fed up with playing THE SAME THING over and over, no mater how good it is.. So they would rather play the bad maps then play a good one for the 12th time in a row..

The very same thing was said about maps even before voting or have we all forgot that?

If players WERE fed up with doing the same thing over and over, why do we have NASCAR? Why does everyone run to and stand in choke points in Terra Therma? Why does half your side still chase rabbits? Why does everyone, every map, run to the middle?

Actually, MWO history shows, players like to do the same thing over and over. If you do not do the same thing over and over, your a hax, cheat, exploiter. NOT doing the same thing over and over is to difficult.

[Kjudoon]

TWIAFU, on 10 November 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

The very same thing was said about maps even before voting or have we all forgot that?

If players WERE fed up with doing the same thing over and over, why do we have NASCAR? Why does everyone run to and stand in choke points in Terra Therma? Why does half your side still chase rabbits? Why does everyone, every map, run to the middle?

Actually, MWO history shows, players like to do the same thing over and over. If you do not do the same thing over and over, your a hax, cheat, exploiter. NOT doing the same thing over and over is to difficult.

And voting for maps apparently has made it worse to listen to the plethora of the threads about it.

NASCAR is completely easy to defeat.

1 Play conquest. No NASCAR possible
2. Play assault and go for base cap or defend yours. NASCAR ended.
3. If you play skirmish, DON'T NASCAR! There are many places to take up defendable positions and blow them apart.

Therefore this argument holds no water. It is an unimaginative player problem, not a map problem.

[TWIAFU]

Kjudoon, on 10 November 2015 - 05:19 AM, said:

Whaaaaa! People won't play what I want even when I force them to so I'll report them and get them banned and that will show them!!!

>and success occurs<

... wait... why is the game population so low?

It is NOT what I want that is important, it is what the majority wants. They are far more important then you, or I, alone.

Cause we have d-bags like whom I was referring to that is going to and is knowingly and intentionally non-participate in game modes, griefing 23 others, because he did not get what he wants when he wants before he quits the game, again.

If you do not like being FORCED to vote, then don't. If you do not like being FORCED to play a game mode the public voted on, then don't. If you do not like being FORCED to deal with each individual voting on what map they want to play when you login, then don't.

What your NOT going to be able to do is FORCE others to deal with your temper tantrum because you did not get what you wanted while in game. What will happen is you will be FORCED to take a vacation.

[Roadbuster]

TWIAFU, on 10 November 2015 - 05:41 AM, said:

The very same thing was said about maps even before voting or have we all forgot that?

If players WERE fed up with doing the same thing over and over, why do we have NASCAR? Why does everyone run to and stand in choke points in Terra Therma? Why does half your side still chase rabbits? Why does everyone, every map, run to the middle?

Actually, MWO history shows, players like to do the same thing over and over. If you do not do the same thing over and over, your a hax, cheat, exploiter. NOT doing the same thing over and over is to difficult.

Well, that's because humans are stupid creatures of habit.
The most inovative things, came from people who though outside the box.
If such people wouldn't exist, we would still believe the Earth is flat and the center of the Universe.
Expand your horizon with variation!

[xWiredx]

OP is just a super meta tryhard. Nothing to see here.

It's pretty obvious that not everybody is like OP because I've played on Terra Therma three times since the patch dropped and I've played my share of conquest (though I'd really like to see more of it). In fact, I've seen every map now. It seems like from day one to the weekend everybody was more interested in getting the advantages of cool maps, but now everybody has gotten bored of seeing the same crap and is starting to vote more diversely. It could also be that some of the meta tryhards are also underage b& and thus aren't on as much during the week, though.