39 replies to this topic

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

I've been part of this game for a long, long time, hell my name's in the credits as Jade Kitsune.

But you know what, there's one decision PGI made that, personally, has been more disastrous than even their implementation of 3PV, or consumables. And that's Map Voting.

I get the idea, and I get why they did it [mostly because of the crying over not knowing where you drop.] but Map voting breaks 2 things for me.

1)It breaks lore: As a mechwarrior, you don't exactly get to pick where you fight on a planet, you go where command tells you, and sometimes, that's not a place that's good for your mech's specs. You just have to deal with it. The removal of map voting has allowed boating to take a firmer hold, as you can simply pick the specific maps to fit your playstyle, instead of having to adapt. sure you're not guaranteed those maps, but given the style of play currently prevalent in MWO, it's likely you'll get what you want.

2) good maps go unplayed. 2 words: Polar Highlands.

I can count the number of times I've played on Polar this week on one hand, and it's not even a full five times. For a map with a strong emphasis on tactics, it never get's picked, no one wants to adapt. Same goes for Terra Therma, I know that map's divisive within the community, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't get played... I've played on it even less than polar in the past week. which is just sad to me. Other maps are seen rarely, Frozen Night, Forrest Colony, even Alpine barely get picked over Mining Colony, or Viridian Bog, or River City.

Back in the old non-vote system, you'd get a pretty good spread of maps [unless a new one got weighted.] You dropped in, and dealt with it, you might complain, but yous till played. Now, now some of my absolute favorite maps, I barely get to play on, because of other's unwillingness to adapt to environmental conditions, or tactical conditions.

I'm just a bit frustrated here guys. I know I can build up my influence by playing the voting mini game to get the map I want, but even that doesn't always work. And I'm just missing the maps these days.

#Savethemaps

[Mystere]

What else do you expect from a MVPCLCD*?

*(Minimally Viable Product Catering to the Lowest Common Denominator)

[MrMadguy]

It's called democracy, power of majority. Deal with it. You don't have multiplier, when you vote for your president. And power of minority is called tyranny. And we don't need tyranny to happen in this game.

Edited by MrMadguy, 27 February 2016 - 02:46 AM.

[van Uber]

This is not worse than 3PV, far from it. 3PV turned out to be a rather decent implementation, but the communication surrounding it was disastrous to be diplomatic and it's probably the worst thing that ever happened this game. Mapvoting? We all know the reason behind it, better matchmaking and still maintaining a modicum of choice. Above all, it can deliver us new game modes without diluting the matchmaker.

It breaks the lore? Well, I could not care less. While I appreciate the lore, it does not in any way take precedence over gameplay and a functional matchmaker. And a system that can be expanded with new modes is far more important than the nagging feeling that it's not quite like the books from the 80s.

Good maps don't always turn up to be the winners when they are present in the vote, sure. But they do get played. I don't get Polar Highlands every single time it shows up, but I do get it regularly. I expect the voting mechanic to be greatly improved with next months patch, where we won't see the actual percentage of votes until we cast our own, non-changeable vote. Then the multiplier will have a more intended effect.

[Mystere]

MrMadguy, on 27 February 2016 - 02:44 AM, said:

It's called democracy, power of majority. Deal with it. You don't have multiplier, when you vote for your president. And power of minority is called tyranny. And we don't need tyranny to happen in this game.

I guess you have not heard of the term Tyranny of the Majority:

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses") is used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule. It involves a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious, political, or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

[MrMadguy]

Mystere, on 27 February 2016 - 02:56 AM, said:

I guess you have not heard of the term Tyranny of the Majority:

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the masses") is used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule. It involves a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious, political, or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.

Other form of government is impossible, when interests of different people are mutually exclusive. People haven't invented something better during 5K year of human civilization history. The only possible solution - is to separate minority from majority. You have private matches - group up with your adherents and play your Polar Conquest, how much you want.

Edited by MrMadguy, 27 February 2016 - 04:01 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

van Uber, on 27 February 2016 - 02:47 AM, said:

This is not worse than 3PV, far from it. 3PV turned out to be a rather decent implementation, but the communication surrounding it was disastrous to be diplomatic and it's probably the worst thing that ever happened this game. Mapvoting? We all know the reason behind it, better matchmaking and still maintaining a modicum of choice. Above all, it can deliver us new game modes without diluting the matchmaker.

It breaks the lore? Well, I could not care less. While I appreciate the lore, it does not in any way take precedence over gameplay and a functional matchmaker. And a system that can be expanded with new modes is far more important than the nagging feeling that it's not quite like the books from the 80s.

Good maps don't always turn up to be the winners when they are present in the vote, sure. But they do get played. I don't get Polar Highlands every single time it shows up, but I do get it regularly. I expect the voting mechanic to be greatly improved with next months patch, where we won't see the actual percentage of votes until we cast our own, non-changeable vote. Then the multiplier will have a more intended effect.

3rd person view was brought under the guise of "It'll help noobs to learn feet to torso orientation" In most mechs, you can't even see your feet to use it properly for this reasoning. It's a literally, useless feature that doesn't do what it was even intended to do.

I agree we'll have to see where things go next month. But I'm just so tired of the current system, which is only encouraging broken gameplay to be abused over actual tactics and adaptability.

MrMadguy, on 27 February 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

Other form of government is impossible, when interests of different people are mutually exclusive. The only possible solution - is to separate minority from majority. You have private matches - group up with your adherents and play your Polar Conquest, how much you want.

I think we can all agree Conquest is broken on polar... when I'm looking for Polar matches, I NEVER want Conquest... the mode just needs a redesign on that map.

[MrMadguy]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 27 February 2016 - 03:05 AM, said:

3rd person view was brought under the guise of "It'll help noobs to learn feet to torso orientation" In most mechs, you can't even see your feet to use it properly for this reasoning. It's a literally, useless feature that doesn't do what it was even intended to do.

I agree we'll have to see where things go next month. But I'm just so tired of the current system, which is only encouraging broken gameplay to be abused over actual tactics and adaptability.

It allows you to see your 'Mech ingame - not only in MechLab. I agree, that 3PV is useless - replay feature would be much greater.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

MrMadguy, on 27 February 2016 - 03:07 AM, said:

It allows you to see your 'Mech ingame - not only in MechLab. I agree, that 3PV is useless - replay feature would be much greater.

Right, but the point of it was because if I remember right Paul's Nephew couldn't grasp how to pilot in 1st person view.

There was a whole BS explanation for adding it, the reasoning being to see your legs and positioning easier and this and that and something else.

Then it turned out to be something functionally useless, that had taken time and asset creation [they had to make the little 3rd person drone] for something that's literally pointless, and actively hurts your team by giving away positional data.

I agree however, a replay feature, would be much, much more useful.

[Mystere]

MrMadguy, on 27 February 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

Other form of government is impossible, when interests of different people are mutually exclusive. The only possible solution - is to separate minority from majority. You have private matches - group up with your adherents and play your Polar Conquest, how much you want.

Or just randomize map selection like we had before. Do the same with game mode selection.

MrMadguy, on 27 February 2016 - 03:04 AM, said:

Because we like turning our land into the graveyard of invaders, that's why.

[Vashramire]

Map voting has the ability to negatively affect the match before it even began. If you vote or even care about the outcome, you have a chance to lose before a shot is even fired. People don't like losing. It's a moral drop before you even drop for some. This can lead to less mature or less patient players just suiciding because they didn't get what they want.

Had a guy on Polar charge in because he was close range and just ran over the top of the hills because he said that was the only way her was going to be able to use his weapons. Most of our team was close range, including myself, and we ended up winning with around 300 damage average aside from the suicider that did less than 50 all because we moved smartly and used cover to advance.

Sometimes people hate or are terrible at Conquest. It's understandable since it's not all about shooting mechs. Back when people had to choose what game types they wanted to queue for, Conquest played a lot better because regardless of the map the people in the game all opted in to play the mode and knew what to do. Those that don't want to be there don't care and dying fast just means they don't have to deal with it. It's unhealthy really. It doesn't help when people don't get what they want and that one guy gloats that he was the one that dropped a 12x on that map or mode and just taunts people. Just gives people a reason to be mean for the sake of it.

I personally don't vote because I don't care what I get. Maps I don't like force me to play better I think. I do think some maps are better or worse than others but the choice to pick a map is really irrelevant to me. Give people a choice and they will usually choose the easiest choice. Often a cold map to support their laser vomit.

Don't give people this kind of choice. A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.

[MrMadguy]

Mystere, on 27 February 2016 - 03:22 AM, said:

Or just randomize map selection like we had before. Do the same with game mode selection.

No. RNG - always mean tyranny of game devs. Cuz RNG doesn't mean fair random - it's anything, players don't have control over. Map rotation was sooooo random, when I was getting streaks of 3 same maps in a row every day, when I was always getting hot map, when I was in hot 'Mech, and when I was spawned on the same side of map for ages. So no. I will accept return of random map rotation, only if "Ban 3 maps" feature will be implemented.

[CreativeAnarchy]

I don't understand this thing for Polar Highlands.

It is my most played map. I don't like that map. Almost every time it is up for vote, it gets selected to play by others, I don't vote for that map at all. 104 times I've played it. My second most played map is canyon network at 84. Third is at 68, the Mining Collective, which is where the curve starts to be more gentle.

I don't care about lore and that isn't a good enough reason to modify the map. I do see the case for intel being available for the area our forces will hit, but this will also allow people to even more specifically tailor their mechs for the map which you are arguing for a change. If that isn't what you mean, then please clarify your lore reason.

Any time Terra(38 times) or Caustic(47 times) comes up, I'm usually the reason people get stuck on those maps. I don't mind hot maps so much, unlike others that run hot mechs. I've at least played them a decent enough times, on the lower end of my played curve, but they are not my least played map, Frozen City at 28 times.

I play on NA servers.

Edited by CreativeAnarchy, 27 February 2016 - 04:29 AM.

[Nightshade24]

CreativeAnarchy, on 27 February 2016 - 04:19 AM, said:

I don't understand this thing for Polar Highlands.

It is my most played map. I don't like that map. Almost every time it is up for vote, it gets selected to play by others, I don't vote for that map at all. 104 times I've played it. My second most played map is canyon network at 84. Third is at 68, the Mining Collective, which is where the curve starts to be more gentle.

I don't care about lore and that isn't a good enough reason to modify the map. I do see the case for intel being available for the area our forces will hit, but this will also allow people to even more specifically tailor their mechs for the map which you are arguing for a change. If that isn't what you mean, then please clarify your lore reason.

Any time Terra(38 times) or Caustic(47 times) comes up, I'm usually the reason people get stuck on those maps. I don't mind hot maps so much, unlike others that run hot mechs. I've at least played them a decent enough times, on the lower end of my played curve, but they are not my least played map, Frozen City at 28 times.

I play on NA servers.

Well I do not vote polar highlands because I hate hot maps .It's just that I love cold maps... could be biased.

I love winter and the night. I like the cold and the snow and the darkness, etc. My name does have the word Night in it after all. I also am a fan of clan ghost bear... but I like polar highlands the most due to it's layout, it's like an MW4 or MW2 layout of a map and not an "MW: O" layout... it's relatively nice nad open and the only cover you got is shallow vallies/ creators and such.

[CreativeAnarchy]

Nightshade24, on 27 February 2016 - 04:33 AM, said:

Well I do not vote polar highlands because I hate hot maps .It's just that I love cold maps... could be biased.

I love winter and the night. I like the cold and the snow and the darkness, etc. My name does have the word Night in it after all. I also am a fan of clan ghost bear... but I like polar highlands the most due to it's layout, it's like an MW4 or MW2 layout of a map and not an "MW: O" layout... it's relatively nice nad open and the only cover you got is shallow vallies/ creators and such.

I'm mostly just tired of that map and would like to get the other maps up in more play time. Polar is a bit desolate for me, I do like the trenches, but there isn't much for scenery except what you see on the edges, and for conquest, it is just too big. I hate showing up in an assault on that map in conquest.

Edited by CreativeAnarchy, 27 February 2016 - 04:38 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

CreativeAnarchy, on 27 February 2016 - 04:37 AM, said:

I'm mostly just tired of that map and would like to get the other maps up in more play time. Polar is a bit desolate for me, I do like the trenches, but there isn't much for scenery except what you see on the edges, and for conquest, it is just too big. I hate showing up in an assault on that map in conquest.

See and for me it's 100% the opposite. every time I see polar, unless I have a 9X multiplier, it won't get chosen, and sometimes, even when I have a maxed out multiplier, it won't take.

Instead, I'll get something like Frozen City, which tanks framerate because the snowstorm in it is unoptimized [and I even have issues with it in thermal mode] when every other map runs at a pretty smooth 60fps.

I agree, Conquest on Polar is absolute hot garbage. Points are too spread out, but as someone who plays 52kph atlas pretty regularly, I don't find it hard to navigate the map and get into fights. In fact, quite the opposite, I can utilise my IDF weapons as I close distance, the team's movement matters, ect.

I'm super curious what timeframe you're dropping into, because it's odd you're getting it so much, yet I'm getting it so little.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

MrMadguy, on 27 February 2016 - 02:44 AM, said:

It's called democracy, power of majority. Deal with it. You don't have multiplier, when you vote for your president. And power of minority is called tyranny. And we don't need tyranny to happen in this game.

The biggest danger of democracy is that the majority will trample the rights and wishes of the minority. Indeed in a democracy protections for the rights and wishes of the minorities must be instituted to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[Zeoraimer]

I like Polar Highlands - I just don't like the way people play it. People don't stick together. People get flanked even when someone is calling enemy locations in chat/VOIP. Its the players that ruins the map experience. On a smaller map, the problems are still there, but the larger distance magnifies it.

Conquest on Polar needs to be like Conquest on Alpine, where they are closer together. We also need multiple conquest point "groups" and more than 1 start location. For example, teams start top and bottom, conquest points are either roughly grouped on the left, right or centre. And teams can start left and right, with conquest points grouped top, middle or bottom. This way, you can dynamically make use of different parts of the map.

The problem with map voting is, its not the majority that wins. It only takes 30 something % to swing the vote. That actually means, the majority did NOT get what they wanted.

For example, if Polar is wining and I don't want it, I now have to vote stack on the currently second highest voted Caustic to stand a chance of not dropping on Polar - but I actually wanted Terra. So I don't get what I want, but also I don't get what I didn't want...

Personally, I just wish we can have a "balanced" rotation. Where it weights your less frequently played maps. I enjoy all maps, because I enjoy variety, even if I don't do well on a particular map. This game has limited enough content as it is, I don't need my possible map choices to shrink too...

Edited by Zeoraimer, 27 February 2016 - 05:31 AM.

[ILikePeaches]

Only in the MWO community could mapvote become a massive political battle. The community wants certains things, in this case deciding which map to play so people play the maps they like. They can have lots of reasons to play a map or not. What is the point of evenly playing all the maps if one of those is unpopular except for a couple people? You lose the rest for one or two people.

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 27 February 2016 - 04:49 AM, said:

See and for me it's 100% the opposite. every time I see polar, unless I have a 9X multiplier, it won't get chosen, and sometimes, even when I have a maxed out multiplier, it won't take.

Instead, I'll get something like Frozen City, which tanks framerate because the snowstorm in it is unoptimized [and I even have issues with it in thermal mode] when every other map runs at a pretty smooth 60fps.

I agree, Conquest on Polar is absolute hot garbage. Points are too spread out, but as someone who plays 52kph atlas pretty regularly, I don't find it hard to navigate the map and get into fights. In fact, quite the opposite, I can utilise my IDF weapons as I close distance, the team's movement matters, ect.

I'm super curious what timeframe you're dropping into, because it's odd you're getting it so much, yet I'm getting it so little.

In the above post the poster complains about not getting to play his map because not a lot of people want to play it. Yet he has his own personal reason for not wanting to play Frozen City. What determines what is fair?


I used to hate the map vote, but it's probably one of the best compromise systems I've seen. You get the map you like? Cool, no multiplier. Don't get the map you like? Then you get a multiplier for the next time and rack them up until you get to play it. This is a smart way of giving players what they want while still allowing for the unpopular to eventually get a chance. This isn't something that's going to affect every facet of your life. This isn't choosing a government. This is voting on maps in a videogame. Most games don't even allow anything but pure democracy.

Here's some polar for you:
http://youtu.be/aIj38G4zNGw

Edited by ILikePeaches, 27 February 2016 - 05:43 AM.

[Thorqemada]

I hate Voting and would rejoice if it goes back to Mode Selection with Random Maps bcs Mode > Map.

Though Polar Highland is a pretty popular map (imho it is very boring) that comes up quite often when available (83 times for me so far) - so it could be that specific timezones prefer it more than others...

Edited by Thorqemada, 27 February 2016 - 06:30 AM.