39 replies to this topic

[VixNix]

KafkaSyrup, on 24 January 2016 - 04:53 PM, said:

Or you could get rid of the problem by removing the bonus vote being added if you change your vote....

Then those who like the maps most others don't like would not be able to play them.

[HumpingBunny]

ArchAngel721, on 07 December 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

[font=&#10]How about you remove the percentages from view? People are gaming the system to try to hit a high multiplier, so stop giving them the tools to do it. No chance to see who’s voted for what and the game goes away.[/font]

I also agree with this. Do not display the percentage of people voting for a map.

[Generic Internetter]

Your poll didn't have an "other" option, so here goes my suggestion:

Make voting last an undisclosed random amount of time between 10 and 15 seconds. (Not strictly intergers, could be 3.72 seconds for example).

So people trying to farm multipliers or influence other votes run a high risk of voting on something they didnt want. This will cut out the nonsense, but still give honest voters a chance to chage their vote if they see that their best shot is their second choice.

If this is too complex to do, then just keep it as except only show the voting percentages after voting closes.

You need to add on the poll:

1. Make the voting time window random.
2. Don't show the voting % until after voting closes.

Edited by Generic Internetter, 26 January 2016 - 01:50 PM.

[VinJade]

just simply remove it, the whole voting thing is a joke, you can have a 100x multiplier and still lose, the way it should be done is have it set up where they just do like they did before and allow players to opt out of some game modes but also add in opting out of some maps as well.

I find that those who don't like the map/game mode will just disconnect or kill themselves leaving some teams one or more members down just because they hate the map/mode.

opt out would allow us to weed those people out automatically & thanks to having a wide array of players from all over the world MM shouldn't have that much of a problem with finding players.

[Bad Pun]

I have a suggestion. Make it a soft vote where your preferences are selected in a drop down menu in the mech lab. Simply have a selection of each map and mode that offers you a choice of "like", "dislike" or "no opinion". Each preference would be compiled and automatically selected between two maps and all three modes. It might even speed up the drop.

Edit to add: this can also give valuable information to PGI, allowing them to see what maps and modes are greatly disliked by players and what may need to be improved.

Edited by Bad Pun, 12 March 2016 - 11:44 AM.

[VinJade]

@Bad Pun
So in other words if a player hates a Mode & Map using dislike would mean it would be a less chance of coming up for that player?

[Bad Pun]

@ VinJade
Exactly. Leave a disclaimer that it won't prevent those from showing up, but that it may reduce their appearance. In effect, you are voting for or against each before you even start looking for a match. There's no way to game that one, every vote is hidden

[VinJade]

@BP
I like that, it would also help weed out those that don't want to play on those maps/modes as that is one of the key reasons why so many kill themselves/disconnect right away.

[NoiseCrypt]

Bad Pun, on 12 March 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

I have a suggestion. Make it a soft vote where your preferences are selected in a drop down menu in the mech lab. Simply have a selection of each map and mode that offers you a choice of "like", "dislike" or "no opinion". Each preference would be compiled and automatically selected between two maps and all three modes. It might even speed up the drop.

Edit to add: this can also give valuable information to PGI, allowing them to see what maps and modes are greatly disliked by players and what may need to be improved.

This should not replace the voting screen, but instead serve as a basis for the match voting options.
The matchmaker could then auto include the highest scoring game mode and map, and auto exclude low scoring modes and maps, but for that match specifically.

The option for "grading" a map or game mode could also be made something unlockable, so that players need at least 10, 20 or ? matches until they are allowed to up/down vote it.

I posted this exact proposal earlier today on a thread in general discussions, which apparently was deleted.
So i am really glad that i found this thread under features...

[Edited - corrections and more text]

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 13 March 2016 - 04:16 PM.

[VinJade]

@NC
The problem though is the current system is a joke, even if they 'lock' and or hide the votes it wont matter.
they simply need to allow players to help avoid maps & modes they refuse to take part in.
Hell just being able to opt out of some maps and some modes would remove a lot of headaches in the long run because of disconnects & killing themselves at the start of the fights.

[NoiseCrypt]

@VinJade
I don't agree. If people want something specific, they should play private matches.
The entire point of PUG is that its "quick matches" and that the majority "rules". Adding the possibility to "avoid" even one game mode, or map, would fragment the bucket/player pool so much that tiers would be useless, and waiting time would increase dramatically.
And when does it end... I don't want this game mode... i don't want to play against lights...I don't want to play against Timber Wolfs...I don't want to play against Gauss Rifles, I don't want to play against modules or ECM....

[VinJade]

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.

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.

the wait time should be faster now that we have more players from around the world regardless of locking out some modes/maps.

Edited by VinJade, 13 March 2016 - 05:28 PM.

[NoiseCrypt]

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.

[VinJade]

The first part was meant to be sarcastic in nature as that is the argument I some times hear is about rank as some actually do have ego behind it.

with that said on to everything else;
I disagree the vote isn't useful at all, no in fact it is a joke and I no longer bother voting because it just doesn't matter.
one person could build up 100x and if there are other players that rack up even a fourth of that could easily outvote that person.

so yeah the voting is a joke and being able to lock out the modes.

you know that you can't make C-bills in Private matches yes?
so that invalidates your argument because many play for two reasons, 1 is for C-bills & the other is with other players.

Do I disagree with those that do disconnect/kill themselves because of it?
Yes.

Do I blame them?
Nope

I can understand them but I would never do it to my team even if they may be part of the reason I am stuck in a map I don't like because I refuse to leave them one man short.

Edited by VinJade, 14 March 2016 - 09:39 AM.

[NoiseCrypt]

VinJade, on 14 March 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

I disagree the vote isn't useful at all, no in fact it is a joke and I no longer bother voting because it just doesn't matter.
one person could build up 100x and if there are other players that rack up even a fourth of that could easily outvote that person.
so yeah the voting is a joke and being able to lock out the modes.

They are addressing the issue with people building huge modifiers, with the new patch changes being applied tomorrow.
With that in place, everything is as fair as it possible could be.
And by all means, come up with a better solution. But the reality right now is that with the amount of players available, you cant implement fair exclusion of game modes and maps without hurting the entire player base. This has been "mathematically / logically" shown by me and countless others on these forums, countless times. And no opposers has a real counter argument, the just keep saying that its totally unfair that they sometimes have to play that one map or that one game mode that they don't like.

VinJade, on 14 March 2016 - 09:32 AM, said:

you know that you can't make C-bills in Private matches yes?
so that invalidates your argument because many play for two reasons, 1 is for C-bills & the other is with other players.

And that's exactly why the conditions have to be equal for everyone... no "special treatment", no "i don't want that part of the game" attitude. You can't have all the benefits but only some of the drawbacks.

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 14 March 2016 - 10:18 AM.

[VinJade]

To be honest I don't see how locking out one or two modes/maps is really hurting everyone.
Yes I know some will go with the "MM has a harder time to find people" argument but I don't see how that would take any longer than it did before they added the joke of a system they have now.

Let me ask you something, how much longer does it take for you to connect to a game if you opt out of a regional sever?
So why don't they just remove that as well?

I mean after all if players started to opt out of many of those servers how much longer do we have to wait for MM?

or why don't we be given the option to vote on which regional server to play on as well?

I mean it is the same thing we had before, instead of mode it is now region, the more someone opts out of those locations the harder it is for MM to find matches is it not?.

Edited by VinJade, 14 March 2016 - 11:14 AM.

[NoiseCrypt]

VinJade, on 14 March 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

To be honest I don't see how locking out one or two modes/maps is really hurting everyone.
Yes I know some will go with the "MM has a harder time to find people" argument but I don't see how that would take any longer than it did before they added the joke of a system they have now.

If MM times became as bad as they used to, it would exactly hurt (almost) everyone, since those waiting times where unacceptable. You just have to accept that the majority of players don't want to wait 5-15 minutes for a match. And that will be the case if lockout is implemented for modes or maps. It would actually be even worse if both where implemented, since there are twice as many maps and game modes now...

VinJade, on 14 March 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

Let me ask you something, how much longer does it take for you to connect to a game if you opt out of a regional sever?

I only play lights and mediums because of the amount of heavies being played. And I only play on the EU servers.
MM times are between instant and 5 minutes, with no real pattern or certainty.

VinJade, on 14 March 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

So why don't they just remove that as well?
I mean after all if players started to opt out of many of those servers how much longer do we have to wait for MM?
or why don't we be given the option to vote on which regional server to play on as well?
I mean it is the same thing we had before, instead of mode it is now region, the more someone opts out of those locations the harder it is for MM to find matches is it not?.

To answer the last question first. No.
The servers represent 3 player buckets which share some part of their player pools,
The game mode / map lockut represents +5 buckets that share no part of their player pools. (And remember...there are twice as many game modes and maps as there used to be...)
So there is no way that you can compare server selection to map/mode lockout in terms of MM time effect.

And sacrificing server selection for the sake of lockout would force (almost) everyone to play with higher ping than they need to. Which would hurt (almost) everyone.
And to spare you the argument of "Some players can only play with high ping because of server location, and they are fine with it. Why cant you ?" I will answer: "A lot of players can play all maps and all game modes and be fine with it, Why cant you?

To sum it up... all of your proposals will hurt (almost) everyone...

[DodgerH2O]

I like the voting minigame though! I'll be very sad to see it go.

Honestly it's much much better than the random drops we had the last time I was playing, and you get to psych out other people in a chance to actually play the map/mode that you want.

[NoiseCrypt]

I don't dislike the voting mini game, and actually hope that they will implement a new "while you wait" mini game (Elemental Suit Bomberman anyone... ? ).
But compared to locked-hidden voting, it completely ruins the best source of data on map/mode popularity, that PGI has.
And for a game that they actively want to improve with new "features", "true" player feedback is crucial.

On a personal note i also think that it enables to many "chronic complainers", but that is probably just me being naive. People that "need" to complain will probably do it anyway

[Requiemking]

Remove that stupid system and for all that is fair DON'T BRING BACK OPT OUT. As it stands MWO commits one of the unforgivable sins of gaming, specifically the sin of allowing players to make the game adapt to how they want. In most games like this players are forced to adapt to the scenarios the game throws at them. This is good as it breeds a more diverse, less specialized meta. However, thanks to Map and Mode vote and, even worse, opt out, players can make the game give them the scenario that best suits their play style. This is, first and formost, is the reason we have our stagnant, boring metas.