27 replies to this topic

[Thorqemada]

Bring back Mode-Selection with Random Maps - make it Soft Vorting for F2Pers and Hard Selection for Premium Timers + optional a max time after it switches into Soft Voting to speed up MM if the Premium Timer wishes.

Premium Timers get a Dropdeck of 4 Mechs to take the most appropriate choice for each randomly selected map - F2Pers have to take what MM gives.

[MrMadguy]

Thorqemada, on 19 February 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Bring back Mode-Selection with Random Maps - make it Soft Vorting for F2Pers and Hard Selection for Premium Timers + optional a max time after it switches into Soft Voting to speed up MM if the Premium Timer wishes.

Premium Timers get a Dropdeck of 4 Mechs to take the most appropriate choice for each randomly selected map - F2Pers have to take what MM gives.

Being able to select map for your 'Mech or, especially, 'Mech for map - is an advantage, as some maps (Alpine, Polar, City, Forest) are biased towards some Meta. Advantage only for Premium players = P2W.

[Tordin]

I'll rather have map voting eliminated. Voting for game mode is okay. Hope they get improved though. Its just great to get a map many whine about for then to grind their mechs into the dirt for said whining. SATISFYING!

Its sad that certain maps dont get played because players are scared shitless about the things they have to do, not getting wrecked. Some dont want to learn and MAYBE find something awesome on the maps they usually hate.

Either its because they cant counter LRM rain, the map is too hot, the map is to cold, the map is to big, the map is not NASCAR friendly, the map is not designed around a single / few focused gathering points!

Its an incredible butt hurt whinefest regarding those things. To those that sorrows (is it a word?) about those things.. Take a deeeep breath, reflect over different sides of things and most important ADAPT!

Edited by Tordin, 19 February 2016 - 08:44 AM.

[Mystere]

MrMadguy, on 19 February 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

Tyranny of majority is much better, then tyranny of minority.

Actually, I myself consider them equally terrible, especially because I've witnessed the horribly tragic RL thing both do.

MrMadguy, on 19 February 2016 - 08:02 AM, said:

You won't quit due to lack of map/mode diversity. You like them all, yeah? And I will quit due to forcing terrible maps/modes on me. And it's dev's problem - not ours. They want diversity of maps/modes? Then they should create GOOD maps/modes - not force bad ones. Problem solved.

I'm actually playing significantly less now that I used to prior to the voting system. My "Three Skirmish Fights and I Am Done for the Day" rule is still very much in effect. Of course, the silver lining is that I get to do other things.

Edited by Mystere, 19 February 2016 - 08:58 AM.

[Mystere]

1Grimbane, on 19 February 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

NO NO NO i'm not in anyway talking about the voting system in regards to choice... i'm talking bout ye olde map select not any type of player based voting at all. like most other games let you select what map you want to jump into. like battlefield or cod. so again i ask why not advocate for a true map select that is what i'm asking... i do not understand why this would not be first choice, this way you get to choose what map to play and you will get that map no matter what. maybe pgi would have to run each map on a different server not sure. so again... why not first go for total control vs random which is no control at all? that is the mindset i cannot understand as i would push for most options first

The problem has always been the same: player population. The more exclusive options there are, the more buckets that need to be considered, and the longer the matchmaker needs to create a fight.

[Jeffrey Wilder]

Jherek C, on 18 February 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

I admit, I hate conquest. I just don't like it. I always had it deselected when we had the option. Now with voting I am forced to play a gamemode I don't want.
I don't mind if I go assault or skirmish and it's pretty ok if its random. Those that like that conquest crap can still have it selected. Forcing gamemodes one doesn't want however is quite bad.

Well, Conquest earns you the most cbills if you didn't notice.

[1Grimbane]

Mystere, on 19 February 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

The problem has always been the same: player population. The more exclusive options there are, the more buckets that need to be considered, and the longer the matchmaker needs to create a fight.

makes sense and this is what i was thinking you guys had in the back of your mind during this debate just needed clarification
maybe one day ... sigh

Edited by 1Grimbane, 19 February 2016 - 09:02 AM.

[WarHippy]

Cion, on 18 February 2016 - 02:18 PM, said:

Solution 1:
Get about 1000 more players online all the time to cover for more buckets

Solution 2:
You design a great way to accommodate you and the guy that actually likes to play Conquest to both be happy and still have under 2 minute wait times with matchmaking involved

Solution 3:
Play CW. No conquest there (yet)

Solution 4:
We all deal with it, you should too.

Solution 1 - We did add more players when we were added to Steam, and according to the devs we have more players now than ever. Selecting game modes worked fine before and now with more players it will work even better.

Solution 2 - I am one of the people that likes conquest and I can't stand skirmish. I also never had problems with wait times and even under the voting system I am getting into games no faster than I was give or take 15 seconds.

Solution 3 - If they make CW more rewarding and worthwhile then I would be happy to do so, but until they actually finish CW and make it interesting I will only play it occasionally.

Solution 4 - Deal with it or complain about the crappy design until it changes like the people that whined about the old system until they got their way?

Solution 5 - A real compromise between the old system and the new system. Instead of the old system change it so we can only exempt ourselves from one game mode out of the 3 current game modes with additional exemptions being added as more game modes are added. Example: 3 game modes 1 exemption - 5 game modes 2 exemptions.

Khobai, on 18 February 2016 - 02:20 PM, said:

I think a better use of energy would be fixing why people dislike the gamemodes.

If all three gamemodes were fun then it wouldnt matter which one got picked...

That would be great, and I have long advocated for them to make the modes something most of us actually want to play rather than something we are forced to play, but until PGI shows the ability or even the drive to do that I would much rather just avoid the modes I do not like.

Edited by WarHippy, 19 February 2016 - 09:41 AM.