39 replies to this topic

[Strelok7]

Rampage, on 19 March 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

I do not have a problem with the present system. I tend to see a wide variety of maps during my play time. I see less variety in modes.

I could support a voting system where the player can choose a map (and mode) that they really want to play and then they are placed in a queue where they wait until 23 other players also sign up to play that map (and mode). That way if you really, really want to play a certain map and mode or to avoid playing a certain map or mode you can do so at the expense of waiting for what you want to fill up and launch.

Seriously, at least something like that.

PS I know at least in quick match you can just uncheck oceanic servers.

Edited by Strelok7, 19 March 2016 - 08:47 PM.

[Strelok7]

I know the problem was with multiplier manipulations. And maybe even voting for not exactly what you want to play.

Well, now I do vote for what I want to play, and I get to play those maps even less! lol
How about more ideas?
How about this: a vote for a lineup of maps not just next one.

[Rejarial Galatan]

voting just needs to go. period. it isnt helpful in terms of SPEEDING things up as RUSS said it would. ALL it has done is allowed skirmish to be the DOMINANT mode, AND it has slowed everything down. just. remove. IT.

[Madrummer]

Strelok7, on 16 March 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

I know why the system was changed, and I agree. But it was overdone, as often happens.

Real case example:
36% for map A
34% B
16% C
14% D

A wins, but 64% of players don't want to play that map.
Just go with this example, its not an impossible scenario.

So, 64% is a majroty in this case. And they have no way to vocie their NO.

Here is where a 2nd vote would come in handy.

Example: I want to play D (voted 1/2), I see A is winning and I just played that map few times already so I don't want it anymore, so I pick B (voted 2/2).

That doesn't change much, honestly. If everyone flooded their votes into the "one or the other," Then either way the same amount of people would be disappointed overall since they don't really want any other map than the one that they voted for.

[Azurhoden]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the voting system is terrible and should be completely removed.
The sad part is that there are enough of the grab-your-gun-and-run-to-the-front-line-so-you-can-shoot-something, Counterstrike kids playing here that PGI will keep trying to make this game more like CoD/Counterstrike, so PGI can soak in the cash for those morons, and this newest game mode shows that proof positive. It's just more skirmish with some fluff attached, that can be easily ignored, so you can wait for the easy targets to stick their heads up and then, bam, skirmish mode... AGAIN.
Sigh, and the worst thing is that it COULD all be made better, but then PGI wouldn't have a way to bilk its players.

Live and Learn or You don't Live long

[Kargan Durge]

Rampage, on 19 March 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

I do not have a problem with the present system. I tend to see a wide variety of maps during my play time. I see less variety in modes.

I could support a voting system where the player can choose a map (and mode) that they really want to play and then they are placed in a queue where they wait until 23 other players also sign up to play that map (and mode). That way if you really, really want to play a certain map and mode or to avoid playing a certain map or mode you can do so at the expense of waiting for what you want to fill up and launch.

Those who are OK with playing whatever map and mode is voted in will still have the benefit of getting into games faster.

Personally, I would like to have the option of NOT playing on the Oceanic servers. I am not sure if it is the high ping or the lack of communication but wins on that server in QP are few and far between for me while the win rate for my PUG teams on the NA servers are like 3-1 and the Euro servers are at least 1-1. I would happily wait in queue longer so as not to go on that server.

QFT! This is the right way to go! It's really a no brainer to have this kind of option. Have selection boxes for both what Maps and what Game modes you would like to play! What is so wrong with giving the play to choose this? Then from the selected they go into the matching Que. No more voting... no more being forced to play a map 3 times in a row that you absolutely hate.

And so what if a player only wants to play on 3 different maps... they just wait longer... that's their choice. And even more brilliant, A player should be able to quickly and easily toggle what Maps and Game modes they want to play. What would be even better, is to be able to create a "Gameplay profiles," so you could pre-set a selection set per what type of mech you decide to pilot. So if I'm playing a light mech, maybe I want to do Conquest mode and a certain set of maps. Or if I play an Assualt, I want to play either Skirmish or Domination modes with certain maps. Thus I can name those profiles and quickly swap between them. Would that be so difficult to do... Probably not, and yet would provide an excellent solution to what everyone wants!

[Rejarial Galatan]

Kargan Durge, on 20 March 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

QFT! This is the right way to go! It's really a no brainer to have this kind of option. Have selection boxes for both what Maps and what Game modes you would like to play! What is so wrong with giving the play to choose this? Then from the selected they go into the matching Que. No more voting... no more being forced to play a map 3 times in a row that you absolutely hate.

And so what if a player only wants to play on 3 different maps... they just wait longer... that's their choice. And even more brilliant, A player should be able to quickly and easily toggle what Maps and Game modes they want to play. What would be even better, is to be able to create a "Gameplay profiles," so you could pre-set a selection set per what type of mech you decide to pilot. So if I'm playing a light mech, maybe I want to do Conquest mode and a certain set of maps. Or if I play an Assualt, I want to play either Skirmish or Domination modes with certain maps. Thus I can name those profiles and quickly swap between them. Would that be so difficult to do... Probably not, and yet would provide an excellent solution to what everyone wants!

Want to know something mind blowingly stupid? We HAD the option prior to voting, the option to opt out of modes we didn't want, then Russ said to himself, lets break this working system and force people to play modes they hate, and then punish them if they still try to not play modes they hate! Mind blowing huh?

[MechsForTheMechGods]

Rampage, on 19 March 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Personally, I would like to have the option of NOT playing on the Oceanic servers.

Kargan Durge, on 20 March 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

QFT! This is the right way to go! It's really a no brainer to have this kind of option.

There is a server selection drop down menu next to the play button.
The option has been there since July 2015

https://mwomercs.com...13413-21jul2015

Edited by MechsForTheMechGods, 20 March 2016 - 07:11 PM.

[kka]

Rejarial Galatan, on 19 March 2016 - 09:47 PM, said:

voting just needs to go. period. it isnt helpful in terms of SPEEDING things up as RUSS said it would. ALL it has done is allowed skirmish to be the DOMINANT mode, AND it has slowed everything down. just. remove. IT.

Have you noticed? Almost everything PGI has done recently, SLOWS THE GAME DOWN.

Domination = skirmish + 1 minute, i.e. SLOWER skirmish
Conquest used to be the fastest mode -> the SLOWEST now. (basically = skirmish + 1-4 minutes btw)
Polar Highlands, an extra large, SLOW map
Voting system = 20 sec extra to SLOW things down

[Strelok7]

Azurhoden, on 20 March 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the voting system is terrible and should be completely removed.

Agree, cutting voting and going for straight rotation would do the trick.

If I had a choice, I would opt out of Grim Portico for the most part, and put Viridian Bog, and Polar Highlands on the shelf for a bit.

[Strelok7]

kka, on 20 March 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

Have you noticed? Almost everything PGI has done recently, SLOWS THE GAME DOWN.

Funny,. Sometimes I take a break from stuff and decide to devote 1/2 hour to MWO gaming, you know, it’s not always easy to do that. Wait here, wait there, wait for people to connect, wait to walk, shoot and hide wait...
In some FPS that I have: I could Start up, pick the server and *map* that I want, get in and have a full match done with, in 15 minutes.

Speaking of slwoing things. Those added mech textures and other patch stuff really did add some system lag, had to scale back on some settings a bit....

It's MWO, and not your typical FPS. I like it. Has room for improvement though.

Edited by Strelok7, 20 March 2016 - 09:12 PM.

[Catho Sharn]

I don't mind the locked voting mechanism, but I don't see the benefit of hidden votes. Showing votes would improve the process, because you can back a map you like that already has votes instead of blindly choosing a map no one else has voted for.

For example, I like Tourmaline and Caldera. If they both show in the poll, and Caldera already has 3 votes, I can back that map and have a better chance of seeing a desirable result instead of yet another match on GP or Forest Colony.

Edited by Catho Sharn, 22 March 2016 - 05:39 PM.

[Strelok7]

Catho Sharn, on 21 March 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

I don't mind the locked voting mechanism, but I don't see the benefit of hidden votes. Showing votes would improve the process, because you can back a map you like that already has votes instead of blindly choosing a map no one else has voted for.

For example, I like Tourmaline and Caldera. If they both show in the poll, and Caldera already has 3 votes, I can back that map and have a better chance of seeing a desirable result instead of yet another match on GP or Forest Colony.

Exactly. You don’t waste your vote.
And also, I think a definite must is to eliminate maps once they have been played until all maps were played.

[ChaosK]

as already mentioned in this thread...

>>>>
before you start the non balanced matchmaking process please select the maps and modes you would like to play today mech pilot:

[ ] map1
[X] map2
[ ] map3
[X] map4
[X] map5
[ ] mapXYZ


do you want to wait eternally for these specific maps or do you want to play any map if it takes 5 mins or more for your selected maps?
[ ] yes I want to wait until hell freezes


[ ] assault
[X] skirmish
[ ] domination
[ ] conquest

[X] yes I want to wait until hell freezes because I hate the other game modes


and while we are at it:
to reduce waiting times I am happy to pilot any of these selected mechs:

Primary Mech Selected:
MyMech234

Secondary Mech Selected:
MyMech0815

Tertiary Mech Selected:
MyMech4711

(or make it 4 Mechs and recycle the FW drop selection box thingy)

Should not be tooo complicated

Edited by ChaosK, 24 March 2016 - 03:45 PM.

[m2wester]

ChaosK, on 24 March 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

Should not be tooo complicated

That's where you and other people are actually wrong. It sounds simple, but it makes the matchmaking algorithm incredibly complicated. Especially if you expect people who select less options to wait longer and things like that. It means that the servers will spend a lot of time calculating options before matching people. That's the main reason why Russ is so happy with the voting system, the matchmaking system can completely ignore maps and gamemodes and thus, can match way quicker.

[gloowa]

m2wester, on 25 March 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

That's where you and other people are actually wrong. It sounds simple, but it makes the matchmaking algorithm incredibly complicated. Especially if you expect people who select less options to wait longer and things like that. It means that the servers will spend a lot of time calculating options before matching people. That's the main reason why Russ is so happy with the voting system, the matchmaking system can completely ignore maps and gamemodes and thus, can match way quicker.

+1

I love when people with no knowdlege say that it "should be simple" to code a network-distributed system which would change unpredictable non-deterministic input with multiple variables into predictable output,.

Edited by gloowa, 25 March 2016 - 08:57 AM.

[Strelok7]

ChaosK, on 24 March 2016 - 03:39 PM, said:

Should not be tooo complicated

m2wester, on 25 March 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

That's where you and other people are actually wrong. It sounds simple, but it makes the matchmaking algorithm incredibly complicated. Especially if you expect people who select less options to wait longer and things like that. It means that the servers will spend a lot of time calculating options before matching people. That's the main reason why Russ is so happy with the voting system, the matchmaking system can completely ignore maps and gamemodes and thus, can match way quicker.

gloowa, on 25 March 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

+1

I love when people with no knowdlege say that it "should be simple" to code a network-distributed system which would change unpredictable non-deterministic input with multiple variables into predictable output,.

Simplicity and user satisfaction takes a lot of work, indeed. Users are there to have fun, programmers are there to work hard

Straight map rotation is simpler than voting, so clearly Piranha Games is not afraid of taking on more complicated approaches. Hope they challenge themselves to make voting even better.

[Rogue Jedi]

Nooee, on 16 March 2016 - 08:47 AM, said:

There should be 4 game modes on the game mode vote. Otherwise what good is voting when for game modes that you do not care for and are forced to play. Seems to me this will lead to a smaller player base and less revenue for PGI.

If that happened we would rarely get anything but skirmish, the most boring of the game modes, I personally like the variety of the other modes but it is extremely unusual for Skirmish to be available to vote on and not win, fortunately since Domination went in Skirmish is down from around 64% of games to more like 48% but I would prefer if it was down to less than 33% of games.

Rampage, on 19 March 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Personally, I would like to have the option of NOT playing on the Oceanic servers.

Then you will be happy to know that option has been in for 8 months, and was available before the OC server went in as has already been mentioned, if you click the drop down arrow next to the quick play button you get the server choice menu where you can select or exclude the servers you want to play on.

[Rejarial Galatan]

suggestion: remove voting completely, return the opt out feature.

[tokumboh]

In all fairness PGI lose no matter what they do. When it was completely up to the user what happened is they predominantly chose cold maps, long line of fire maps, new maps until the novelty wore off. Hot maps were a no no in the main.

I prefer random as I like conquest most but like all the modes some mode suit some maps so I think there is an issue with that but I believe we should go fully random you'd have to play some mode and play some maps and we could vote for which maps we don't want on the forum and see if they take us up on them.

I also want a proper sandy desert map with dunes that move and another couple of urban maps with one where you could hide in buildings