58 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I don't care if you want to pick your maps or not... it's matters more if the bad maps actually get worked on (not just magically invisible terrain/structure hitboxes) so that they aren't whined about the way they are.

Blaming people who want non-garbage maps (regardless of how map selection works) is like saying the best original Doom 1 map is wow.wad.

Map design isn't just about art... it's literally about "how it plays".

So-called "garbage" maps are a matter of opinion, not fact.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mystere, on 04 April 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

So-called "garbage" maps are a matter of opinion, not fact.

A bit of both. There are some objective design flaws that weight maps to one side or another having the advantage. That said, I have yet to see one that was so weighted as to be impossible to overcome. Hell, even on the terribad Alpine, I when I can get a unit to NOT focus on Candy Mountain, and go either way to the South East of it, or to the Base way to the West....

It's amazing how that forces the other team to respond to you and lose the "advantage". Of course, sometimes that means waiting for 10 minutes until they realize you aren't going to walk up like sheep to the slaughter, but eh... "winning".

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 04 April 2017 - 09:01 AM, said:

So-called "garbage" maps are a matter of opinion, not fact.

Sounds like #alternativefacts.

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

A bit of both. There are some objective design flaws that weight maps to one side or another having the advantage. That said, I have yet to see one that was so weighted as to be impossible to overcome. Hell, even on the terribad Alpine, I when I can get a unit to NOT focus on Candy Mountain, and go either way to the South East of it, or to the Base way to the West....

It's amazing how that forces the other team to respond to you and lose the "advantage". Of course, sometimes that means waiting for 10 minutes until they realize you aren't going to walk up like sheep to the slaughter, but eh... "winning".

This only occasionally works if the opfor is impatient (sometimes by timer) or is down. These are the situations most would prefer to avoid in the first place.

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Sounds like #alternativefacts.




This only occasionally works if the opfor is impatient (sometimes by timer) or is down. These are the situations most would prefer to avoid in the first place.

worst case, you end up with a tie, unless your force is down, or impatient. End of the day, growing impatient and forcing a bad position is a sure way to lose if facing equal forces. Of course... with the way MM works, and such, forces are rarely matched equally, which is why in almost all cases outside of Comp level play, the team that is simply cohesive and aggressive, wins, 90% of the time. In PUG and standard team QP; if you can just get the cats to nut up and push, you almost always win. On any map, from any spawn location. Yes, in Comp v Comp, YMMV.

The frustrating part indeed is how few people are willing to risk their electrons and stats... and risk dying fast, because apparently cowering, and dying slow is better for their stats? :/

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 04 April 2017 - 09:11 AM.

[xe N on]

Random map but instead a selection of mechs in a drop deck could be better.

[Deathlike]

xe N on, on 04 April 2017 - 09:12 AM, said:

Random map but instead a selection of mechs in a drop deck could be better.

That doesn't help though.

You have to remember you when you drop in a group setting that the tonnage limits are in play, so at best you would only be able to replace a mech that has the same tonnage. That may be problematic for a 20 and 25-tonner though. The worst part is that you'll get more specific decks being rolled out as a consequence based on a map. It doesn't magically help things though.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 April 2017 - 09:15 AM.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

A bit of both. There are some objective design flaws that weight maps to one side or another having the advantage.

Well, I do not mind uneven maps. What's so ******* wrong with that anyway, especially in a "war game", "A BattleTech Game"?

I just don't see it, probably unless one is entirely 100% e-spurts.

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2017 - 09:03 AM, said:

That said, I have yet to see one that was so weighted as to be impossible to overcome. Hell, even on the terribad Alpine, I when I can get a unit to NOT focus on Candy Mountain, and go either way to the South East of it, or to the Base way to the West....

It's amazing how that forces the other team to respond to you and lose the "advantage". Of course, sometimes that means waiting for 10 minutes until they realize you aren't going to walk up like sheep to the slaughter, but eh... "winning".

Hell, it's not as if a person always only drops on the "disadvantaged" side anyway. That's statistically impossible. But then again given the amount of wild exaggerations being spewed around here ...

[Deathlike]

Mystere, on 04 April 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

Hell, it's not as if a person always only drops on the "disadvantaged" side anyway. That's statistically impossible. But then again given the amount of wild exaggerations being spewed around here ...

When we did have map-based RNGesus, I found myself playing a lot of the same maps a lot and some of the ones you needed (for some of the lame challenges) would rarely ever come up.

So, it's actually possible to be stuck on the wrong side a lot more on the good side. It's all in the stats thru RNGesus.

Edited by Deathlike, 04 April 2017 - 09:18 AM.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2017 - 09:07 AM, said:

Sounds like #alternativefacts.

I loved the original "it's completely garbage, never should have been built, shoot dead whomever designed it" Terra Therma.

Deathlike, on 04 April 2017 - 09:17 AM, said:

When we did have map-based RNGesus, I found myself playing a lot of the same maps a lot and some of the ones you needed (for some of the lame challenges) would rarely ever come up.

So, it's actually possible to be stuck on the wrong side a lot more on the good side. It's all in the stats thru RNGesus.

It's funny though how you hear much less about someone stuck on the good side.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mystere, on 04 April 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

I loved the original "it's completely garbage, never should have been built, shoot dead whomever designed it" Terra Therma.

Don't worry, soon we will get the perfectly balanced map/meta/mechs.... it will basically just be a modern iteration of PONG.


Perfect Comp Balance achieved.... wait.. dammit... but what it a person who is right eye dominant has to play the left side.... oh damn. *gives up and walks away*

[Sjorpha]

Yes +1000

Map voting is horrible, make it random.

Game mode voting is horrible too, make that random as well.

[Faernix]

It would be better if it was a veto vote and remove the multiplier.

Vote against the map you don't want the most. Least veto votes wins, or a random of the most equal veto votes.

I don't have a problem with most maps, just some maps I'd simply prefer to avoid if given a choice.

This way PGI might get some useful metrics on maps that people hate and have problems with.

Edited by Faernix, 04 April 2017 - 09:28 AM.

[Amsro]

Mystere, on 04 April 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

I loved the original "it's completely garbage, never should have been built, shoot dead whomever designed it" Terra Therma.



It's funny though how you hear much less about someone stuck on the good side.

I've lost matches on the "good side" when players get blinded by "knowing" they will win on that side.

Also won many matches on the " bad side" of that map too.

Odd map/mode combo to be sure.

[Mystere]

Faernix, on 04 April 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

It would be better if it was a veto vote and remove the multiplier.

Vote against the map you don't want the most. Least veto votes wins, or a random of the most equal veto votes.

I don't have a problem with most maps, just some maps I'd simply prefer to avoid if given a choice.

Nah! That would still result in hated maps getting played less.

Faernix, on 04 April 2017 - 09:24 AM, said:

This way PGI might get some useful metrics on maps that people hate and have problems with.

Considering PGI would not know why a map was hated based merely on those metrics, they are completely useless.

[Paigan]

Bishop Steiner, on 04 April 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Playing the same three maps, over and over and over again is "fixed"?

I mean I get a kick out of how the OP managed to make random map voting into an Epeen fest, when it's just as much the "good" players as the "Bads" who constantly vote for the same damn maps over and over again (hence why we see so much Grim, Mining and Canyon), but claiming things are perfect now? Just... no.

It repetitive and boring as hell now, just like the meta, the builds, etc.

I play pretty much all maps, pretty well mixed.
Sometimes, it's 2 or even 3 times canyon or HPG in a row. That is a little annoying.
In the ... uhm ... thousands of matches till the voting system, the distribution is exactely as it should be: popular maps a little more often, not so popular maps not so often, but still on occasion.
Yes, that is fixed.
Perfectly.

Anything else are effects like selective perception, cognitive dissonance and dunning-kruger-effect on the whiner's end.
Google it. Funny stuff.

[Roughneck45]

This is another "can't win" subject for PGI.

No matter what the selection process is or isn't there will be a thread saying it is flawed somewhere.

The easiest way to remove the mini game is to look away from your screen and not vote. Voila, full random, as far as the player not looking at the screen is concerned.

Edited by Roughneck45, 04 April 2017 - 10:05 AM.

[Deathlike]

Roughneck45, on 04 April 2017 - 09:50 AM, said:

This is another "can't win" subject for PGI.

No matter what the selection process is or isn't there will be a thread saying it is flawed somewhere.

The easiest way to remove the mini game is to look away from your screen and not vote. Voila, full random.

It's not truly random because it's #rigged (due to Escort generally futzing with map options).

[DAYLEET]

V O L T R O N, on 04 April 2017 - 04:50 AM, said:

Would also be great if all maps had a equal percentage of getting. Hot, cold, long and short range makes people keep their builds honest. If the map is for brawling or whatever the case maybe. Random makes it FAIR for everyone.

Awesome idea. Some map could be freezing at night and be Terra hot at noon. Would be nice if that was dynamic with the time of day.

Also, screw map voting, all voting for that matter.

Paigan, on 04 April 2017 - 04:57 AM, said:

So do you really want Terra Therma come as often as Canyon Network?

Yes, because with 15 maps its not that often. Also have some system in place that look at over all map played by all the player in a match and prioritize those less played.

El Bandito, on 04 April 2017 - 05:57 AM, said:

LRM map usually shows up more in GQ. In SQ, maps such as Polar is not that commonly picked. Mostly it is Crimson, and Frozen, thanks to the inclusion of Escort mode biasing map selection.

What? Polar and Grim get voted 50% of the times at the hours i play.

Edited by DAYLEET, 04 April 2017 - 10:04 AM.

[Mystere]

DAYLEET, on 04 April 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

Awesome idea. Some map could be freezing at night and be Terra hot at noon. Would be nice if that was dynamic with the time of day.

Haze? Snow? Dust? Darkness? Sunlight shining on your face?

Anything that does not give crystal clear 100% perfect visibility will not be tolerated by the player base. No siree!

[Bishop Steiner]

Deathlike, on 04 April 2017 - 09:54 AM, said:

It's not truly random because it's #rigged (due to Escort generally futzing with map options).

no RNG is truly random to begin with, but yes those things skew stuff even more.