140 replies to this topic

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Fenrisulvyn, on 10 November 2015 - 09:02 PM, said:

It is kinda ironic - the people claiming I am "ruining" their game mode hate mine so much that they have essentially removed it from play. Then they turn around and demand I support theirs...

And its not like they don't do they same thing - they drop on Assault and ignore the base and play it as skirmish, they drop on Conquest and ignore resource caps and play it as skirmish. And then they complain that I don't support their mode? LOL.

Couldent have said it better. You have been trolled by this community. Now its time to give them a taste of what they did to you.

[FinnMcKool]

Mcgral18, on 10 November 2015 - 07:01 PM, said:

Honestly, could you just stop playing period, instead?

Being a Terribad on purpose isn't helping anyone.

you dont get it do you?
You guys who pick skirm always all the time are the "Terribad"
and you really arnt helping anyone , just ruining an otherwize great game.
what would be great if you all quit you kiddys who need training wheels to play a game) before the game ends because of your actions!

[ShinVector]

Mystere, on 10 November 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

Random game mode and map selection is the fastest, simplest, and most viable solution.

Personally I don't care much about the map or game mode... My only setting all this while was Oceanic...
Already takes 10mins to search for a game anyway.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"Once PGI sees a significant decline in player numbers..."

Won't work. PGI is out of touch. Check Russ's twitter feed - his solution is to polish the....

PGI will simply blame declining player numbers on Fallout4.

Edited by Fenrisulvyn, 10 November 2015 - 09:17 PM.

[Alwrathandabout42ninjas]

Fenrisulvyn, on 10 November 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:

PGI will simply blame declining player numbers on Fallout4.

Well. That was going to happen anyway. Even if phase 3 CW and a new game mode was out. Its Fallout 4, its the game of the year.

[El Bandito]

Alwrath, on 10 November 2015 - 08:58 PM, said:

Going out of your way and expecting people to always go to the same spot on every map and always doing the same death balling strategy is considered trolling.

Why? Stale tactics. Stale gameplay. Stale game.

That's not considered trolling, it is called metagame. Ask people in any MP only game. Sure it is stale, and can be better, but trolling, it is not.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 November 2015 - 09:41 PM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

Bandito: "Going out of one's way to hamper the team's performance is considered more of a trolling."

I'm not going out of my way to hamper my team.

I'm simply no longer going out of my way to help the people who always vote down Assault and Conquest.

Funny how you guys always have to distort what is said.

[Tuis Ryche]

FinnMcKool, on 10 November 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:

you dont get it do you?
You guys who pick skirm always all the time are the "Terribad"
and you really arnt helping anyone , just ruining an otherwize great game.
what would be great if you all quit you kiddys who need training wheels to play a game) before the game ends because of your actions!

FWIW, I prefer Skirmish 100%. I do not want to play Assault like Skirmish, nor do I want to play Conquest like Skirmish. I don't want to play them at all except when events roll around. I *can* play them, but I do not want to. Up until last week, I had that option. Now, like you Assault and Conquest players, I don't.

I used to think that map opt-outs in addition to mode opt-outs was a way to go. I see that it would be a major PITA. I still think, though, that the old method of players choosing their mode (or all of them) with random map selection is the best.

If any tweaking could be done to avoid the 4-5 of the same map in a row issue, if the matchmaker scanned the players' last 3 maps and picked the one with the lowest number of appearances on those lists.

But instead, they want to try to affect the voting by changing how often a map or mode appears to players in order to diversify the selection to players. In effect, they want to rig the election so you think you have a choice. Well, those who actually vote anyway. Some don't even get the screen loaded before the decision is made. Some simply gave up and don't give a **** anymore. In the end, what they're trying to do is make this new system do just what the old one was already doing. It's nuts.

In any case, this vote system just needs to go away. I don't care what other games already have it. They either have appeal or the conditioned player base to handle it. Judging by the queues lately, I don't think MWO does.

[El Bandito]

Fenrisulvyn, on 10 November 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

Bandito: "Going out of one's way to hamper the team's performance is considered more of a trolling."

I'm not going out of my way to hamper my team.

I'm simply no longer going out of my way to help the people who always vote down Assault and Conquest.

Funny how you guys always have to distort what is said.

If you are not helping them, then you are hampering the team. A team would objectively perform better if everyone gets on board the program--which is why premade teams are more effective than solo only teams, in general.

Note that I did not say you are out-right trolling, but "not supporting the team" is far closer to trolling, than "going with the meta is trolling", as Alwrath claimed.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 November 2015 - 10:14 PM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

"If you are not helping them, then you are hampering the team"

So when you ignore capping on Conquest because you just want to skirmish, you are griefing 23 players?

I just want to know for future reference....

[El Bandito]

Fenrisulvyn, on 10 November 2015 - 10:07 PM, said:

"If you are not helping them, then you are hampering the team"

So when you ignore capping on Conquest because you just want to skirmish, you are griefing 23 players?

I just want to know for future reference....

Depends on the context. If your team agreed to cap in Conquest, but you decided not to and engage the enemy team? That's hampering your team.

If your team wants to fight the enemy around the center cap point in Conquest, and you engage the enemy team there? That's helping your team.

Edited by El Bandito, 10 November 2015 - 10:13 PM.

[MechWarrior3671771]

Well sure, I can agree that when I refuse to pop a UAV in a spot that would definitely help my team, I am hampering them. Would you agree that's a "legit" form of hampering, no different than the "sin" of taking a non-meta loadout?

Maybe I misunderstood you, I thought you were implying that something like "If your team agreed to cap in Conquest, but you decided not to and engaged the enemy team" is griefing, not just hampering, and as such is a reportable offense.

Is that what you mean? Not helping your team is griefing and reportable? That can't be what you meant...

[Mcgral18]

FinnMcKool, on 10 November 2015 - 09:07 PM, said:

you dont get it do you?
You guys who pick skirm always all the time are the "Terribad"
and you really arnt helping anyone , just ruining an otherwize great game.
what would be great if you all quit you kiddys who need training wheels to play a game) before the game ends because of your actions!

I don't pick anything; I'm Alt Tabbed and by the time the screen flashes, the match has begun.

The game is shooting robots, whether you like it or not. If you refuse to shoot robots, why bother playing?

Not even sure what the second part is trying to say.

[Jacobei]

Fenrisulvyn, on 10 November 2015 - 09:02 PM, said:

It is kinda ironic - the people claiming I am "ruining" their game mode hate mine so much that they have essentially removed it from play. Then they turn around and demand I support theirs...

And its not like they don't do they same thing - they drop on Assault and ignore the base and play it as skirmish, they drop on Conquest and ignore resource caps and play it as skirmish. And then they complain that I don't support their mode? LOL.

^ YUP!! This is totally right

[ShinVector]

Fenrisulvyn, on 10 November 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:

PGI will simply blame declining player numbers on Fallout4.

I think you forgot about SC2:LotV. !
"Power overwhelming !!"

[MechWarrior3671771]

"The game is shooting robots, whether you like it or not. If you refuse to shoot robots, why bother playing?"

What if we could also shoot robots with some kind of ballistic round too, wouldn't that be cool?

Oh wait! I know! How about we add a tactical element, where you have to choose which group of robots to shoot first. Or choose whether to attack their base or defend yours. Wouldn't that make it even more fun?

Also, I know shooting robots in the snow is really [Frozen1] really [Frozen2] really [Frozen3] really [Frozen4] FUN!
But what if we also got to shoot robots in the water, or shoot robots on a mountain, maybe we could even shoot robots over a lava pit! That would be cool, yes?

Edited by Fenrisulvyn, 11 November 2015 - 12:18 PM.

[Tuis Ryche]

Mcgral18, on 10 November 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

The game is shooting robots, whether you like it or not. If you refuse to shoot robots, why bother playing?

Perhaps we should dismiss your insights on game mechanics just as you dismiss their insights on matchmaking and the resulting game enjoyment.

[DarthHias]

Best part is when a team has killed 11 guys and realizes one light is left. Then the rage begins As long as the light hits an enemy once in a while and generally keeps playing i always write in chat:
Let him he´s acting according to the voted gamemode.
You signed up for 15 minutes.
Don´t malign the poor disconnect button, I´m gonna enjoy the show.
Other gamemodes have objectives by which you could force him to encounter you or loose.

Best guy was one who said at the start that he loves Skirmish, then at the end he stated he hates seek and destroy. Lol seriously?

Perhaps it´s time to get good ol´ spidy out of her Mechbay gotta be quite dusty by now.
Perhaps she would enjoy the ol´ build of ECM+ERPPC yes?

[Madcap72]

LOL OP calls out people for being unconstructive, then spends the whole thread defending how he's going to be unconstructive.

[jss78]

I think the map variety with the voting is actually kind of OK. Game modes, not so much. Skirmish wins pretty much every time when it's on offer.

What I'd like to see is some kind of a safeguard that guarantees a minimum frequency of games even at unpopular maps/modes.

The challenge is how to do it. A couple of ways come to mind though:

Option 1: Have the players only vote on either game mode or map, for each game. One of the two is pre-selected. And in that pre-selection, make it a weighted random pick, based on how often that map or game mode was selected when it was being voted on. So pre-select a popular game mode or map more often, but guarantee that each map or game mode is pre-selected at a minimum, acceptable frequency.

Option 2: If a given map or game mode is getting over-represented, exclude it more often from the voting selection. If really many games are at Frozen, cut down the frequency at which it's offered, until the frequency of games played at Frozen comes down to an acceptable level.

Something like this would avoid the "tyranny of the majority" -- even the minority get their way, once in a while, although the voice of the majority carries most weight.

Edited by jss78, 11 November 2015 - 01:37 AM.