190 replies to this topic

[Mister Blastman]

Mystere, on 24 November 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

It's simple. More players who love the IP are currently upset, disillusioned, resentful, etc. about the current situation of the game. Subjecting people to the whims of other via a "voting" system was just the latest "slight" they have to endure. Then this latest tweak was like adding insult to injury to quite a number.

Well what would you rather--a chance at winning the map you want or no chance at all laying gracefully upon the hands of some random deck-shuffling deity?

I like the ability to stack cards up my sleeve for that rainy map that I want to play really bad. The rest of the time I don't notice much of a difference from how it was before.

As for game mode... I don't notice much a change there, either, as I never had only one selected in the list.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 24 November 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Mystere]

Mister Blastman, on 24 November 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

Well what would you rather--a chance at winning the map you want or no chance at all laying gracefully upon the hands of some random deck-shuffling deity?

I like the ability to stack cards up my sleeve for that rainy map that I want to play really bad. The rest of the time I don't notice much of a difference from how it was before.

As for game mode... I don't notice much a change there, either, as I never had only one selected in the list.

My position is still the same: randomly selecting map and game mode is still the easiest, fastest, and fairest way. I'd rather be subjected to the whims of an imperfect but neutral random number generator than to a bunch of highly imperfect human beings serving their own interests.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 24 November 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

My position is still the same: randomly selecting map and game mode is still the easiest, fastest, and fairest way. I'd rather be subjected to the whims of an imperfect but neutral random number generator than to a bunch of highly imperfect human beings serving their own interests.

We are still subjected to that mechanic. You're limited to what the RNG gives you for choices.

[Mister Blastman]

Mystere, on 24 November 2015 - 08:45 AM, said:

My position is still the same: randomly selecting map and game mode is still the easiest, fastest, and fairest way. I'd rather be subjected to the whims of an imperfect but neutral random number generator than to a bunch of highly imperfect human beings serving their own interests.

Well consider this--computers aren't exactly perfect random number generators. They are flawed. Humans, with their propensity for superposition in their neural latticework are far better digit pickers than any binary machine.

[WarHippy]

Mister Blastman, on 24 November 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

Hahaha ignorant? Mayhap you grab a thesaurus and pick a better word. This thread is absurd--all the crying and whining, "Boo hoo! I can't get the map I wanted! Waaaaa I don't get to pick my game mode every single time!"

Come on, man--what I stated were not absolutes or facts--merely examples to titillate your fancy. Ignorance has nothing to do with that.

Try harder next time. Improper use of the English language is a crime.

This thread may indeed be absurd in your opinion, but your comparisons were pretty ignorant, and that is what I was referring to in your post when I said it was ignorant. Apparently that is hard for you to grasp it would seem so perhaps I have misjudged you and gave you too much credit by expecting better from you.

[Mystere]

Mister Blastman, on 24 November 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Well consider this--computers aren't exactly perfect random number generators. They are flawed. Humans, with their propensity for superposition in their neural latticework are far better digit pickers than any binary machine.

I did say "imperfect but neutral random number generator". And I still say, when matchmaking in games is concerned anyway, they're better than "human beings serving their own self interests".

I think the initial release of Voting 2.0 was clear proof of that when 100% of my games were Skirmish, the mode I always had unchecked before then. And people turning Voting 2.1 into a mini-game was just gravy.

Edited by Mystere, 24 November 2015 - 09:01 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

WarHippy, on 24 November 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

This thread may indeed be absurd in your opinion, but your comparisons were pretty ignorant, and that is what I was referring to in your post when I said it was ignorant. Apparently that is hard for you to grasp it would seem so perhaps I have misjudged you and gave you too much credit by expecting better from you.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Isn't this a swell day--a time when you can call anything and everything you like ignorant!

Once upon a time there was a man named Sir Isaac Newton and on a bright sunny day an apple fell and bonked him on the head.

"Egad! I got it! It's gravity that made this apple fall!" He shouted and ran right off to his lab to work formulae on parchment. After some time--many years to be exact, he emerged, eyes swollen, blackened beneath, hair frazzled but with a new truth.

"Today! London! Men of country! I give you something new! I give you... calculus! And it will help us solve these physical problems with mathematics and set the world on a course anew!" He preached atop a podium in the square.

"BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! HISSSSS!" Went the crowd. Numerous vegetables and rotten pieces of animal drippings flew at him on the stage. He ducked. He covered. He stood up again.

"What is this! I give you answers! Through math and science we can solve some of the greatest problems and bring upon a new age!"

"What a prat!"

"Imbecile!"

"Ignorant knave!"

Various insults where hurled in a nasty slurry. Mister Newton, not to be defeated, walked off, uncompromised and undefeated, off to his room where he stayed for years to come as he wrought fantastic prognostication.

For you see, the townfolk that called him ignorant, 'twas not he, Mister Newton, the dullard that would be, for 'twas they, instead, who had heads stuffed full of hay.

Now do you see the fallacy of your entire notion?

Perhaps try and come up with a sound rebuttal, next time, okay?

Edited by Mister Blastman, 24 November 2015 - 09:16 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Mystere, on 24 November 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

I did say "imperfect but neutral random number generator". And I still say, when matchmaking in games is concerned anyway, they're better than "human beings serving their own self interests".

Yes you did but I argue humans are far better suited at generating random numbers than a computer ever will. Through emotional choice and illogical biological whims, their proclivity for irregular outcomes surpasses any silicon board of wire and electricity.

What does it matter? We get a different map and like before, most of the time it isn't the one we wanted. The only thing that has changed is people are picking it instead of a machine? Is that what is so bothersome--that the competitive spirit extends to the map picking and in the end, it is more important who gets to choose the playground than who uses their toys to best their peers through showmanship and skill?

[Almond Brown]

DeadEye COTP, on 19 November 2015 - 07:04 AM, said:

It would be drastically better if it locked you in on your first vote so you weren't able to abuse the system in any way. But that actually requires PGI to have common sense.

If players would just pick a F'ing Map and a Mode then that would be "common sense" as well right?

PGI may lock it down but the buttheads will still complain that they can't change a "mistake" they made, even though they are lying through their teeth when they say that. So this is not on PGI, just the DBag's who think they are getting away with something and that makes them clever. LOL! Clever is not the term they are looking for though...

Edited by Almond Brown, 24 November 2015 - 09:36 AM.

[Mystere]

Mister Blastman, on 24 November 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

Yes you did but I argue humans are far better suited at generating random numbers than a computer ever will. Through emotional choice and illogical biological whims, their proclivity for irregular outcomes surpasses any silicon board of wire and electricity.

My take is on this issue is a bit different. PGI wasted time, effort, and other precious but limited resources when a random number generator would have been easier, faster, and fairer.

Besides, Voting 2.0 screwed everyone that did not like to play Skirmish. I myself got 100% Skirmish until the day I just gave up. A random number generator would not have pissed me as much. So much for the "humans are far better suited at generating random numbers than a computer ever will" argument.

So PGI created a mini-game called Voting 2.1.

In a related note, I wonder what the results of a gain-loss analysis of the voting system would look like as of today.

[Almond Brown]

Coolant, on 19 November 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

I'm not playing till I get my way!!

(jk)

Well, we could always "show you the way". j/k

[Almond Brown]

Mister Blastman, on 24 November 2015 - 08:50 AM, said:

Well consider this--computers aren't exactly perfect random number generators. They are flawed. Humans, with their propensity for superposition in their neural latticework are far better digit pickers than any binary machine.

Although True, a computer doesn't WHINE incessantly when it doesn't get what it wanted...

[Surn]

I like loading up dakka then forcing everyone to fight on terra therma... Good times!

[Mister Blastman]

Mystere, on 24 November 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

My take is on this issue is a bit different. PGI wasted time, effort, and other precious but limited resources when a random number generator would have been easier, faster, and fairer.

Besides, Voting 2.0 screwed everyone that did not like to play Skirmish. I myself got 100% Skirmish until the day I just gave up. A random number generator would not have pissed me as much. So much for the "humans are far better suited at generating random numbers than a computer ever will" argument.

So PGI created a mini-game called Voting 2.1.

In a related note, I wonder what the results of a gain-loss analysis of the voting system would look like as of today.

Imagine for a moment you have a coin of two sides. You delicately grasp it between your thumb and forefinger and toss it into the air. As it glimmers beneath the overhead light, you stretch out a hand which you catch it upon. You uncurl your fingers and take a look--what do you see?

You might see heads... you might see tails--and after you see what the money has decreed, you toss it again and again, each time to another whim.


It is entirely possible to have a coin with only two outcomes to produce heads each and every time for fifty flips in a row. You may never get tails in all of those tries. That is the nature of random probability. Just because there are two sides does not mean that after fifty tosses there will be twenty five heads and twenty five tails. The same can happen with a random map picker or a human one though the humans will produce a purer set due to superposition--something a binary machine is incapable of.

With map voting you at least have some influence to get the map you want. With a random one you never do. I'd prefer to wager a bet with a stack of cards and a chance to re-draw while retaining a few in my pocket for a time when I want to use them to suit my fancy.

[Mystere]

Almond Brown, on 24 November 2015 - 09:33 AM, said:

Although True, a computer doesn't WHINE incessantly when it doesn't get what it wanted...

I guess you have never heard and seen a computer go up in smoke after overheating from aggressive overclocking. It was not a whine, though, but rather like a million voices crying out in unison, then suddenly silenced..

Edited by Mystere, 24 November 2015 - 09:42 AM.

[Clint Steel]

I like the randomness this adds to which maps come up. Much more variety than the old "random" map selection

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 24 November 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

My take is on this issue is a bit different. PGI wasted time, effort, and other precious but limited resources when a random number generator would have been easier, faster, and fairer.

Besides, Voting 2.0 screwed everyone that did not like to play Skirmish. I myself got 100% Skirmish until the day I just gave up. A random number generator would not have pissed me as much. So much for the "humans are far better suited at generating random numbers than a computer ever will" argument.

So PGI created a mini-game called Voting 2.1.

In a related note, I wonder what the results of a gain-loss analysis of the voting system would look like as of today.

In all honesty I see a lot more variety in maps and modes under this new voting system than I used to. I don't always play the exact combination I want but I get a lot more variety overall and typically shorter wait times on average.

[Mystere]

Clint Steel, on 24 November 2015 - 10:08 AM, said:

I like the randomness this adds to which maps come up. Much more variety than the old "random" map selection

Considering the old random map selection was just fine from my POV:

Sandpit, on 24 November 2015 - 10:10 AM, said:

In all honesty I see a lot more variety in maps and modes under this new voting system than I used to. I don't always play the exact combination I want but I get a lot more variety overall and typically shorter wait times on average.

For now I'm just going to have to take your word for it because I am currently very busy with something else ( ) to find out for myself.

[kanamisan]

Mister Blastman, on 24 November 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

Yes you did but I argue humans are far better suited at generating random numbers than a computer ever will. Through emotional choice and illogical biological whims, their proclivity for irregular outcomes surpasses any silicon board of wire and electricity. What does it matter? We get a different map and like before, most of the time it isn't the one we wanted. The only thing that has changed is people are picking it instead of a machine? Is that what is so bothersome--that the competitive spirit extends to the map picking and in the end, it is more important who gets to choose the playground than who uses their toys to best their peers through showmanship and skill?

very much this.
I will take any of my mechs anywhere. though some of them have incomplete builds, I would still do it. Tera therma, caustic, anything else, I would go there and do my best to win. The diffrence between me and some of the tryhards however is simple. I dont worry about the odds, or whats the best way to do things to a tee, instead, I use my knowledge to build something that works, at least for me, and then do my best to make it really work. not that it always works, but its through the act of putting effort in that I gain more enjoyment from the game.

sadly most people don't have the guts to do what I do, including that admitting that I am not the best, or putting forth effort to do the best they can. perhaps thats the problem people have. if thats the case, then I fear for our future.

[CHH Badkarma]

The multiplier system is prime example of how things swing in this game. In the end, someone always has more pull that you. S.O.P with pgi. Should all be used to it by now.

1+1=4

starting to think PGI was schooled in the U.S.