24 replies to this topic

[ArmandTulsen]

Prosperity Park, on 17 March 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Wow. They dump everyone into one bucket NOT because there are too few players, that's the scrub excuse. Here are 2 reasons. 1.) We have 3 different SERVERS now, which does diffuse the playerbase a bit. 2.) Lumping people into a bucket and then letting them vote allows for tighter skill-matching in the MatchMaker without causing very long wait times. If we went back to check boxes, then you have have to choose between longer waits, or sloppy skill matches. Right now we have tighter skill matches AND shorter waits. There are 3 variables here. Skill, Wait, and Choice. Right now PGI has decided to optimize for Skill matching and Wait times, and we have sacrificed our ability for 100% choice as a result. If you want your 100% choice back, then we'd have to sacrifice Skill matching or Wait time. If you have ever complained that the MatchMaker causes unfiar Skill Matchups, or if Wait Times are too long, then you can't complain about the lack of Mode checkboxes because that's what has to give in order to optimize for the other 2 variables.

This is... acceptable.

I withdraw my complaint.

[WarHippy]

NoiseCrypt, on 17 March 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

You can repeat that until the end of times, but that does not make it true.

That is what Russ said. Is it true, or was it only true at that time? No idea, but the only thing we know is what we are told and what we were told is that the population is up.

NoiseCrypt, on 17 March 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

No. Depending on the mech class that you queue, you will have between a couple of seconds to a couple of minutes... that is way better than the old mm times.

No, for some it is better, but for others it is not. I have seen zero improvement to how long it takes to find matches.

NoiseCrypt, on 17 March 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

You shall all vote and you shall receive... just like everyone else.

We could also just go full random as that would at least be marginally better than the current system.

NoiseCrypt, on 17 March 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

Are you sure that you are playing the right game... this is a tactical FPS based around customization and adaptation. If you only want half or even less of that, there are probably better options out there...

Perhaps because brain dead skirmish seems to dumb down the tactics and need for adaption? Perhaps all the people that want to play nothing but deathmatch are the ones playing the wrong game?

NoiseCrypt, on 17 March 2016 - 12:46 PM, said:

No, because then the developers wont know what maps and modes are popular, and which ones people think sucks... and then they cant justify allocating resources to improving those maps and modes that suck.

People voting for what makes their lives easier doesn't mean other modes or maps are bad only that they don't want to adapt to the needs of the map/mode like you talked about above. So again I have to wonder if maybe they are the ones playing the wrong game. Then again PGI often seems to take from and learn the wrong lessons from things like this so I wouldn't get my hopes up for them to really fix the modes/maps some deem to be "sucky". Perfect example would be the new capture mechanics in conquest that people are pretty unhappy with.

[DAYLEET]

Fen Tetsudo, on 17 March 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Because we no longer have enough people playing. Its a bucket thing.

It dont matter considering that the Tieri'ng is per person and not pet match. It's not the voting system that decreased drop time, in fact it added another delay.

Death Proof, on 17 March 2016 - 12:41 PM, said:

I'd be A-OK with random, since pretty much all the game modes are the same anyway...and we've had random map selection since beta.

All I care about is tight skill matching and low wait times.

Random map is fine, game mode is separate in any game ive ever played because people dont like to be forced into game style they dont like. A map, even engineered to make you play a certain way can be played the way you want and still contribute to the objective and win where a game mode if you ignore the way its meant to be played you waste everyone time and dont realyl contribute.

Edited by DAYLEET, 17 March 2016 - 01:04 PM.

[NoiseCrypt]

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

If this is true we shouldn't be able to choose server either and just put everyone in a single bucket. Before you bring up adverse game play from being forced to play on servers with bad ping it really isn't all that different from adverse game play created when forced into game modes you do not want to play.

No and yes it is.
You can't compare server selection with map/mode selection in any logical way.
If you disagree please show me some concrete math, statistics, proof... anything that indicates that removing server selection would offset the penalties from introduction a map/mode exclusion...

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

Completely random does this as well without being forced to play the same modes and maps again and again due to vote. Random selection would mean I only have to see skirmish ~25% of the time instead of 50-60% of the time.

That is not random... that is ordered...
Playing Conquest 10 times in a row on 3 different maps is just as random as playing an even distribution of game modes on different (or the same) map.
Given human nature, I would actually like to argue that the voting process is more random than any PGI map/mode selection algorithm should be...
How will you handle the day you only get Skirmish matches... because that will happen with random...

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

I know everyone has different experiences, but I'm not seeing faster queue times and tighter skill matches. The only thing that has changed for me is being forced to skirmish with no other improvements. The cost of choice was simply too high for pretty much no improvement for the other 2 variables.
Seeing as people still complain about skill levels in the matchups we might as well have our choice back.

I disagree.

[NoiseCrypt]

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

That is what Russ said. Is it true, or was it only true at that time? No idea, but the only thing we know is what we are told and what we were told is that the population is up.

He confirmed that a lot of players joined during the steam launch.
But he never said that it was enough to warent any changes in the voting system.
And if you take a look at the MWO activity on Steam you will see that its on a steady decline.
So the sad fact is, that MWO probably saw its biggest player base ever in December 2015.

WarHippy, on 17 March 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

Perhaps because brain dead skirmish seems to dumb down the tactics and need for adaption? Perhaps all the people that want to play nothing but deathmatch are the ones playing the wrong game?
People voting for what makes their lives easier doesn't mean other modes or maps are bad only that they don't want to adapt to the needs of the map/mode like you talked about above. So again I have to wonder if maybe they are the ones playing the wrong game. Then again PGI often seems to take from and learn the wrong lessons from things like this so I wouldn't get my hopes up for them to really fix the modes/maps some deem to be "sucky". Perfect example would be the new capture mechanics in conquest that people are pretty unhappy with.

No, most of them are having fun... otherwise they would find something else to do. That is how most people work.
What I don't understand is that some people sticking around even though they have no faith in the developers or the community.
You just called the majority of the player-base brain dead, egocentric and lazy...

Edited by NoiseCrypt, 17 March 2016 - 01:19 PM.