VinJade, on 13 March 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:
Ah so the real reason many may be against is because they are scared that it would destroy's the tier system and harm someone's ego as the person might lose their ranking......
Got ya.
Please don't use "Got ya" when making paranoid far fetched conclusions. I do not endorse your statement in any way.
Personally i support the tier system 100%. Its intention off matching players of equal skill is a no-brainer, and even though the implementation isn't perfect, i cant figure out how it could be done in a better way. The tier system isn't perfect, but in my opinion its the best tool available.
VinJade, on 13 March 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:
No the way it would work is that it would help weed out so many disconnects/self kills at the very start of the match because they don't like the map/mode they are in.
I liked the system better before as I actually seen less disconnects & self kills.
only two maps was ever the cause of those two actions and the first was Tera and the other was the swamp as the mode was fine once it was able to have been locked out.
I don't experinece this behavior in the solo queue PUG matches that i play.
And if it actually is a real problem, then, in my opinion, the unhappy players should be playing private matches.
"Custom" PUG matches is a never ending trail of complaints:
I don't want this map, I don't want this game mode, I don't want this mech class, I don't want this weapon class, I don't want ECM...
In my opinion PUG should always be majority rules, which is why i think that "soft voting"/"pr player preferences" is a really good idea.
VinJade, on 13 March 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:
the wait time should be faster now that we have more players from around the world regardless of locking out some modes/maps.
That is just pure speculation, and my pure speculation counter argument is: Players from around the world will play the region with lowest ping. Which means that only a small subset of players will be enabling multiple servers.
The locking-out of a mode/map could be absolutely crippling for the matchmaker.
Four Game Mode, Two Voting Options scenario:
This leaves us with five sub-buckets for each tier.
NotA, NotB, NotC, NotD and DontCare
FluffyButtSkull has locked-out game mode A and is thus in the sub-bucket NotA.
He is now the "oldest" player in queue and is selected by the matchmaker as the basis for the next match.
The matchmaker will now need to decide if the voting options should be B&C or B&D.
If it chooses B&C, this will exclude the sub-buckets NotB and NotC
If it chooses B&D, this will exclude the sub-buckets NotB and NotD
Best case: this means nothing, since everyone have chosen a compatible lockout.
Worst case: he will never play a match again since everyone else have chosen an incompatible lockout.
Everything in between: Longer and longer match making times the closer you get to worst case. And a bigger and bigger mix of tiers, since the matchmaker will need to include neighboring tiers in order to find potential players.
Bonus:
While we are at it. Lets add 4 more sub-buckets (the counter buckets).
NotNotA: Because i want to be sure that game mode A always will be a potential voting option when i play a match,
So now you have:
NotA, NotNotA, NotB, NotNotB, NotC, NotNotC, NotD, NotNotD, DontCare
... i don't even know how to explain how complicated that is going to be...
Best case: No one uses lockout and everything works as normal.
Worst case: No one ever gets to play a match again.
Reallity: Anyone using lockout won't ever play a match again.
Edited by NoiseCrypt, 14 March 2016 - 02:32 AM.