39 replies to this topic

[Mike McSullivan]

If the new system should bring a more randomized mapselection, well, why not just drop the whole voting system and let the system choose randomly?

p.s.: i really liked the old system. Never had long waiting times!

[Duke Nedo]

Raggedyman, on 17 November 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:

except that other people, who haven't had their pic win, will be able to vote for maps modes that they "know that no one will vote for" and have a decent chance of a win, thus you're vote power gets reset to zero.

Its almost like the whole game doesn't revolve around you

I can understand the reasoning behind it sort of, if I try really hard. I think they are aiming at reducing the effect of RNG here and make it more systematic. If someone had to play something they didn't want 10 times they are almost guaranteed to get their way the next round... in Theory.

What this fails to do is to take human nature into account. Like many already said, people will try to game the system. Even if there is little room for it (I agree, in the long run), people will try. My prediction is that this will, at least initially, result in pretty chaotic map selection as people try to snipe free influence at the last second of the vote.

Factor in that many people per drop miss the vote because they have tabbed out... If now as little as two people with some saved up points do that simultaneously, they may very well accidentally get "their way" and quite possibly select a map for 24 people that not a single one really wanted to play. It will be hilarious!

Edited by Duke Nedo, 17 November 2015 - 05:39 AM.

[Raggedyman]

Duke Nedo, on 17 November 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

I can understand the reasoning behind it sort of, if I try really hard. I think they are aiming at reducing the effect of RNG here and make it more systematic. If someone had to play something they didn't want 10 times they are almost guaranteed to get their way the next round... in Theory.

What this fails to do is to take human nature into account. Like many already said, people will try to game the system. Even if there is little room for it (I agree, in the long run), people will try. My prediction is that this will, at least initially, result in pretty chaotic map selection as people try to snipe free influence at the last second of the vote.

Factor in that many people per drop miss the vote because they have tabbed out... If now as little as two people with some saved up points do that simultaneously, they may very well accidentally get "their way" and quite possibly select a map for 24 people that not a single one really wanted to play. It will be hilarious!

[TexAce]

Duke Nedo, on 17 November 2015 - 05:38 AM, said:

I can understand the reasoning behind it sort of, if I try really hard. I think they are aiming at reducing the effect of RNG here and make it more systematic. If someone had to play something they didn't want 10 times they are almost guaranteed to get their way the next round... in Theory.

What this fails to do is to take human nature into account. Like many already said, people will try to game the system. Even if there is little room for it (I agree, in the long run), people will try. My prediction is that this will, at least initially, result in pretty chaotic map selection as people try to snipe free influence at the last second of the vote.

Factor in that many people per drop miss the vote because they have tabbed out... If now as little as two people with some saved up points do that simultaneously, they may very well accidentally get "their way" and quite possibly select a map for 24 people that not a single one really wanted to play. It will be hilarious!

Seriously, who cares?

If someone tabbs out during map vote, it means he or she doesnt care which map he or she gets.

Oh you're not present during voting? Well then deal with what ever you get.

When was voting in any regard different?

[Paigan]

1Grimbane, on 16 November 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:

Case in point... i'll vote for maps i know that no one will vote for just to increase my say in voting next round.... this is stupid to the max pgi! the minority voters get more input because they feel butthurt? good grief people

The funny thing behind this logic is:
If everybody does it, it will still be perfectly balanced

Edited by Paigan, 17 November 2015 - 06:30 AM.

[NextGame]

The design decisions around this game get more ridiculous by the day.

[Duke Nedo]

TexAce, on 17 November 2015 - 06:13 AM, said:

Seriously, who cares?

If someone tabbs out during map vote, it means he or she doesnt care which map he or she gets.

Oh you're not present during voting? Well then deal with what ever you get.

When was voting in any regard different?

I think you missed my point completely. My point was that because many people will miss the vote, few votes are required for funny things to happen... and no, I really don't care. I was fine with random maps. I will enjoy the qq though. ^^

[Clownwarlord]

So if I understand it correctly. The new system is if I do not get what I want eventually I will when I get uber weighted vote? OK, sure this will work ... sort of ... by pissing off everyone else that I drop with but hey I played your maps now you play mine kind a thing. I like it.

[Solahma]

1Grimbane, on 16 November 2015 - 08:24 PM, said:

Case in point... i'll vote for maps i know that no one will vote for just to increase my say in voting next round.... this is stupid to the max pgi! the minority voters get more input because they feel butthurt? good grief people

How does that make your vote better? You aren't playing the same people in the next match and you will NEVER be guaranteed a vote just because you purposefully lost your vote in the first match. This logic is faulty. There is nothing broken about the proposed vote weighting.

Also, why would your vote be more important in the first game or the second game. Neither of them are more important than the other and you have no idea what maps will show up in the next vote, nor who you are playing.

Edited by Solahma, 17 November 2015 - 07:06 AM.

[Lugh]

El Bandito, on 16 November 2015 - 11:47 PM, said:

It's basically similar to electoral college, where states with fewer population has more votes.

Methinks you don't really understand the electoral college and what it was designed to do.

It is absolutely balanced by population. Bigger states have bigger portions of the college. That's why you have 'swing' states.

Smaller states like say, Delaware don't matter much at all because of their small population.

The electoral college IS an artifact of voting on paper designed to allow remote regions voting to be done by proxy based on early trending so that the vote count didn't take weeks to resolve in YE GOOD OLE DAYS. It's completely unnecessary today and should be abolished entirely.

You might be confusing the electoral college with the Senate, where every state has two Senators and Two votes regardless of population.

Edited by Lugh, 17 November 2015 - 07:20 AM.

[Sarlic]

NextGame, on 17 November 2015 - 06:41 AM, said:

The design decisions around this game get more ridiculous by the day.

What about the UI design itself? It's horrible.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4826191

[Ghogiel]

I don't think much will change, I see other modes and maps enough to know no one is going to be swinging votes unless they have been tactically storing votes like the OP suggests. I think less so for non skirmish votes since they will be using them up way before they get to 12 stored anyway, combined with the map/mode bias inherent in the pop.

[jozkhan]

The new system won't be any different to the old voting system.

Most people will be playing most matches on maps and modes they didnt want / vote for. Same as before.

The chances of playing the mode and map you want are roughly the same as before.

All this does is add in some kind of 'special snowflake' feelgood factor that may or may not allow you swing 1 vote in 10 or 12, depending on other 'special snowflakes' voting situations.

It's ridiculous.

[sycocys]

Game what? If no one wants to play your map or mode you are still outnumbered by 12 votes at the worst case scenario.

[Kira Onime]

This is their solution to fixing bad maps and boring game modes? LOL

[Almond Brown]

martian, on 16 November 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

"Exercise in democracy"

How to make sure that two players votes in the same poll do not have the same weight. LOL.

Imagine how it would work in the real life: I have voted a dozen times for some fringe party that has never succeeded. Therefore, now my vote weighs twelve times more than yours ...

Just "imagine it in RL" indeed. This is a Video Game friend and has SFA to do with RL. But if you find a Voting system like that on the Planet, try it and let us know who won...

[RussianWolf]

El Bandito, on 16 November 2015 - 11:47 PM, said:

It's basically similar to electoral college, where states with fewer population has more votes.

low pop states get 3 votes, larger pop states get more votes based on their pop.

The number of votes is equal to the number of Senators (always 2) and number of Representatives (at least 1, but increase for about every 700k pop the state has).

[RussianWolf]

Lugh, on 17 November 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

Methinks you don't really understand the electoral college and what it was designed to do.

It is absolutely balanced by population. Bigger states have bigger portions of the college. That's why you have 'swing' states.

Smaller states like say, Delaware don't matter much at all because of their small population.

The electoral college IS an artifact of voting on paper designed to allow remote regions voting to be done by proxy based on early trending so that the vote count didn't take weeks to resolve in YE GOOD OLE DAYS. It's completely unnecessary today and should be abolished entirely.

You might be confusing the electoral college with the Senate, where every state has two Senators and Two votes regardless of population.

Personally I think it has more to do with the politicians (those that electoral voters) to have the final say in who is going to be voted for. There is no rule that says that the Electoral college voters for a state HAVE to vote for the candidate that the popular vote indicated. Imagine the vote happens on the first Tuesday of November and then the popular candidate goes off his rocker and starts vilifying his own party. They could in fact elect anyone else on the ballot. Lol (Chances aren't high, but its possible)

And I love the fact that roughly 25% of the population could choose the president. Win the top 13 electoral states by roughly 51% and you win.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

sycocys, on 17 November 2015 - 07:45 AM, said:

Game what? If no one wants to play your map or mode you are still outnumbered by 12 votes at the worst case scenario.

Only worst case scenarios never happen. Usually half of the people vote, and usually the votes are divided.The system won't change much, but it will help at those days when I see consistently 30% skirmish and 20% conquest... and we always get skirmish. Now we'll get conquest a bit more often.

No that I like the change much, not really. But it will contribute to the variety a bit, so it's fine by me.

[WarHippy]

It is going to fix nothing. We are still going to see mostly skirmish and the same maps. They need to do away with voting on maps entirely, and allow us to select our game modes again.