12 replies to this topic

[Arugela]

Remove the bonus for match selection. As much as people may like it. It is counter to a good match. This is because wether you like the selection or not most people will vote for the map they are good at. If several people can get 5+% and vote each map and control it you are more likely to have mechs not fit for the map. Or a majority of mechs not good for the map.

This means that if you vote with only 1% per player even getting maps you won't like you will be better off potentially as the other voted because of their mech layout. The current voting system makes mechs potentially less fit to the match and more often. This cause more chance of a bad match.

[Vellron2005]

Voting has been made "weighted" by the bonus for a reason.

That reason is that some people like unpopular maps, and could never ever get to play on them because they would get outvoted.

The voting bonus gives you a chance to "force" the vote, so that you get to play on Terra Therma once in a while.. instead of never ever..

This was a highly requested feature.

Before this was implemented, the game only had 3 maps, HPG, Canyon Network and Frozen City. Despite it having all the other maps.

its because of this you get to sometimes play something other than those three maps.

Keep in mind that your mech not beeing "optimised" for the map is actually quite realistic. In real life, it's called an ambush.

Also, your "bad game" is somebody's good game, and vice-versa..

Edited by Vellron2005, 19 December 2016 - 06:28 AM.

[Arugela]

Yes but statistically giving that ability can make it so every match is won by that ability. Think how many maps have bad mechs in it. Or everyone going long range because they don't know what map they will get. Any instability in this will cause profound problems potentially. If we have group voting that voting needs to be accurate or not there at all. Adding that bonuse eliminates the whole purpose of voting. Two people with 7% bonus can always win a vote given 100% spread easily. It's too powerful.

they should analyze the affects on gameplay more thoroughly and implement a better solution. That or add an alternative and let pug be chosen as random...

Edited by Arugela, 20 December 2016 - 01:51 AM.

[Bellum Dominum]

Uh 7% and two people will not 'win a vote'. Trust me and others who have combined together that and higher to try to force Terra Therma and still got stuck with Bipolar Scrublands. Not only does that not necessarily guarantee you the maps you want but you are forgetting the little feature of 'every once and a while the vote register doesn't care how the vote went'. I remember before there was voting at all and we were all stuck at the whim of pgi on how they set up maps in the que. Sometimes wish it would go back to that honestly. At least there all the maps could get played in a couple hours of game time instead of 1/2 a day of 'oh look another ice map because people suck at heat management'. (Do I sound salty? Honestly I am a little bit about this. Gets tiring seeing lrm heavy frozen maps so much and I'm not hating on lrms at all.)

So yeah no... please PGI don't give in to removing the chance for those of us that actually enjoy maps that take a little more skill to play on to actually be able to play on them.

edit: I don't even mean to sound like I'm hating on Polar Highlands. The map it's self is a good map. The amount it gets played kills it for me is all.

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 20 December 2016 - 03:01 PM.

[Elessar]

If you get a high enough multiplyer to "force" Terra Therma, that multiplyer (of maybe 9-11x) is "bought" with having at least 9-11 games (usually more) where you didn't get your vote granted.

Considering how rarely I encounter Terra Therma or Viridian Bog, I definitely don't think that the Voting multiplyer enforces unpopular maps all too often.

If it were not for the voting multiplyer I asm sure we wouldn't encounter these maps at all and play exclusively on HPG manifold, Mining complex, Polar Highlands and Frozen City.

Therefore I am really glad that the voting multiplyer exists, as it increases the chances that, at least occasionally, we stray away from those 4 most popular maps

[Arugela]

I'm not refering to coordinated attempts to force a map. just the odds of it happening coincidentally. If 100% is spread into 4. That averages 25%. The odds of having people each game getting so and so bonus are what percentage of the game. How many will you have per match with more than 1% bonus and what is the affect. That is more what I'm refering too. If too high it voids the whole point of a voting system by potentially have 5+% in too many numbers each game. That would make it so no one ever gets to vote reliably for their maps for their mech layout. In which case a real vote is better off as the voting majority should be voting for what they are good at. Hence minorities still win out as far as mech layouts for the match and likely wins.

5% of 25 is 20% affect on a single map vote... That is a lot of authority. Either a different method or lower numbers might be better.

Messing with that too much can stop long term development of strategy and tactics in the community as a whole. Especially when there is no alternative method to play the game. It's all or nothing consequences. It may be part of the problem.

think how many people are controlling the vote each match. If it's 4 of 24 people each time we vote there is a problem. And even without subtle issues with community development in the long term. This is not a good solution. Something should be made that considered player development more. It matters if the team has mech layouts set for the map. If the current system does not fit the game design well enough it shouldn't be there.

What about adding more consideration under the hood as to what maps you get. Stuff that makes it so your mech layout is more relevant. Or anything that is based around maintaining group cohesion and compatibility more than choices.

Edited by Arugela, 20 December 2016 - 08:18 PM.

[Elessar]

I have no doubt that already now in > 90% of cases the map gets selected that the majority of players wants (and that, what the majority wants is the 4 maps I mentioned in my previous posting).
(most players (with a "mainstream taste" of maps) surely will bounce between a multiplier of 1-3, as they get their map votes granted very often ... only people with a "non-mainstream taste in maps" will accumulate multipliers to higher values)

Only in cases where Terra Therma and maybe Caustic Valley and Viridian Bog get selected you actually see an effect of the multiplier (and those cases happen rarely enough)

And this (i.e. gettoing hot maps only rarely) already now has a negative effect on the development of the strategy of the community.
With your suggestion (of doing away with miltipliers or making ehtir effect so low that it is negilible), hot maps ywould get never ever selected anymore, meaning that soon the community wouldn't even have a little experience on hot maps anymore (resulting in lots of mechs with bad heat management that are adapted to cold maps like Polar or Ice City))
Therefore actually your suggestion would have a very negative impact on the community (certain playstiles/skills never again getting learned by PUGs and püeople who like playstiles/maps that aren't in accordance with the majoirity of players, wamndering away from MWO because they nerver ever ever getting to play their favored maps anymore.

If you want to have full control over the map you play, there already now is a way ... it is called private lounges/matches.
Also, in Faction Warfare invasions the assortment of maps is severely limited (in invasion maps it seems to be always temperate and mountaineous) ... so, you can also very well adapt your mech to those

[Tiantara]

- No way! I don't want end again with maps for event or game mods which noone take! I have many event in previous time when you cant get needed game mod only because everyone do that already and don't need it anymore!! Voting only way to get what you need if you don't choose any for 8-9 times.

[Bellum Dominum]

Elessar is 110%+ spot on. Take a look at my profile and you'll see my number of forum posts and tier do not exemplify how long I've been around the game. I already have moved MWO to my third almost fourth choice of games to play for a number of reasons. One large reason is I really do not enjoy the Tier 1 bracket so I have to stop playing for periods of time just to keep myself from going back up into T1 (now a function where I could turn off tier progression would be awesome). (don't get an ego T1 it is't because of your skill it is largely because of the ego and the amount of cheats that are pretty easy to identify - map hack being a large one, then toss in how many with that ego didn't earn it because they were carried into the bracket by their unit and yeah.. T1 while it used to be a blast is garbage tier now imho). The next reason in order of priority is the map selection which is what this OP is all about. The 'salty' post earlier went over that.

I get excited today when I see players from 4 years ago still around. I've been back playing for a couple weeks now almost and can safely say I've not even seen 5 players that I've known that long. Perhaps they are all doing CW (as I don't play regularly anymore I dropped my unit so I wasn't a ghost member of any unit on them).

Seriously map voting, especially the way it was without mulitpliers, has unfortunately had a negative impact on player ability as well as retainment of original players. It was a feature we all wanted badly and weekends of next to nothing but 1 or 2 maps had a lot to do with this which just so happens to be exactly what the map voting has ended up bringing us even with quite a few more maps to choose from.

So OP your suggestion of perhaps more than 2 maps to vote for might have a positive effect upon that. At least that way if say both Alpine Peaks and Polar Highlands were available but so too were 2 other less often played maps maybe the crowd that flocks to the cold maps would end up splitting their votes enough that the others could get a non-cold map but I'm willing to bet instead of a split that it would just end up going to Polar Highlands because of the two that is the more 'popular'. I'd say if they could put into the algorithm a way that would make the vote be for 3 possible choices and the likelihood of a map making it to the vote choices dropped each time that map was voted in and then once all maps had been played the same amount of times that option limiter was wiped across all maps would be pretty awesome. Then we'd have a good chance of seeing all the maps again in a day. (yeah that last bit is horribly written but hopefully I got the thought across without too much confusion lmao)

Edited by Bellum Dominum, 21 December 2016 - 11:17 AM.

[Tiantara]

- Well... I like suggestion about choosing more than one map.

[Kalimaster]

I say keep it. Now there are many times I have voted for a particular map, or type of map and was out voted. Still if I can get said map, even if I must have a high bonus to get it, then yes. Not everyone votes for Terra Therma, or for Polar Highlands for that matter. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke...don't fix it.

[Arugela]

What about changing the background choice of maps to more often than not you are getting the map that fits you based on weapon range or something? Stuff that plays to who is playing the match and making the weapons fit together better based on current game design. Or is that what is currently in game?

Edited by Arugela, 23 December 2016 - 08:48 PM.

[Beaching Betty]

Its just a way to make people that want to play unpopular map playable