So in about 2k players, “only” 1400 voted “correctly”. Compare this to 27 votes… and no one is nostradamus to say 100% sure what would win.
Common sense says Fixed Tiers would win.
Let’s just go on fact, shall we?
- English and Russian forms, while not identical, are similar in their voting pattern.
- We know approximately 30% of voters picked “not sure / no opinion” in the initial run.
- There was no equivalent option in the final version of the poll, so these voters must have voted for another option.
Now, why do we assume they voted #1? Primarily through testimonial. We know, for a fact, that several players voted without reading or caring what the poll was about. These people have confirmed this both in game and here on the forums.
The rest is simple statistical observation. The discrepancy between Forum and Game is about the same as the “non-committal” group from the initial run.
This is not difficult to understand. In game poll is about 30% off where we would expect it, about 30% of players initially wanted to vote “no opinion”. Ergo, 30% of players voted for Option A because the option they wanted was not available.
Sensible, logical and supported by the available data. If you have an alternative interpretation, feel free to share it.
Seems that the data does not matter. we go r6 vs r15 during US prime time with 600ppl online.
Ultimately, pissing about with matchmaking is a waste of time when the fundamental, underlying problem is not addressed - we need players. That means trying to give the best possible experience for the majority, even if it means screwing the endgame.
Locked Tiers would do that; all the mixed tier system is doing is giving people increasingly stupid and broken matches, which lowers approval of the game and increases player attrition.
another version ? Of course I can, while I do agree some of these 30% voted #1 option, I’m pretty sure, most of them voted “randomly” as stated by them. By “randomly” and the math law of large numbers, these (let’s say) 20% of random were divided equally between the 4 other choices.
And I’m sure you wouldn’t bet anything important on that “30% voted #1” statement.
“Locked Tiers would do that; all the mixed tier system is doing is giving people increasingly stupid and broken matches, which lowers approval of the game and increases player attrition.” This is an opinion, not a fact.
another version ? Of course I can, while I do agree some of these 30% voted #1 option, I’m pretty sure, most of them voted “randomly” as stated by them. By “randomly” and the math law of large numbers, these (let’s say) 20% of random were divided equally between the 4 other choices.
And I’m sure you wouldn’t bet anything important on that “30% voted #1” statement.
“Locked Tiers would do that; all the mixed tier system is doing is giving people increasingly stupid and broken matches, which lowers approval of the game and increases player attrition.” This is an opinion, not a fact.
I know plenty of players who stopped playing because of changes in the matchmaking. I don’t know anyone who left the game under fixed tiers and came back specifically for the mixed tier system.
Ergo, mixed tiers damaged the player base, so logically fixed tiers would win people back.
Maybe no, though I’m quite neutral on the changes (since I played on both systems). I know people that would quit in fixed tiers. It’s not because you don’t know them that they don’t exist.
And What initially motivated the DEVs to make InGame Polls ?
I’m curious to know, especially because InGame polls give rewards, but “Active” game community is normally the game forums community where polls don’t give anything for participants…
what motivated them I guess is the fact that the whole playerbase give his advice instead of only 1% of people who have time to go on the forum (which is often a kind of gamer not representative) .
what motivated them I guess is the fact that the whole playerbase give his advice instead of only 1% of people who have time to go on the forum (which is often a kind of gamer not representative) .
Again, I know you don’t like to listen, but I will repeat:
Before Fixed Tiers were removed, the Devs ran an IN GAME poll asking if we wanted mixed tiers or not. The MAJORITY (ie: “more than half”) stated they did not.
We got mixed tiers.
The Devs do not listen to players.
Why cant we have BOTH systems in the same GAME?!
Que up for Fixed Tiers
Que up for Mixed Tiers
A simple button click on our end. With more players it will be a viable option.
Why cant we have BOTH systems in the same GAME?!
Que up for Fixed Tiers
Que up for Mixed Tiers
A simple button click on our end. With more players it will be a viable option.
If the matchmaker was working properly (not “as intended”, but properly) then the bulk of the people in any given game would be of the same tier anyway, so the “fixed” option would result in little to no change in matchmaking time.
Simple change, but makes everyone happy.
To relate it back to Sector Conquest a moment, you could put in a system where if you pick Fixed Tier matches the reward you get varies by tier; the lower you are, the less your reward. So, T5 pilots who pick Fixed Tier get no change in reward (or even an increased reward, to discourage farming and encourage them to fight other skilled T5 pilots), whereas T2 would get very little reward.
If the matchmaker was working properly (not “as intended”, but properly) then the bulk of the people in any given game would be of the same tier anyway, so the “fixed” option would result in little to no change in matchmaking time.
Simple change, but makes everyone happy.
To relate it back to Sector Conquest a moment, you could put in a system where if you pick Fixed Tier matches the reward you get varies by tier; the lower you are, the less your reward. So, T5 pilots who pick Fixed Tier get no change in reward (or even an increased reward, to discourage farming and encourage them to fight other skilled T5 pilots), whereas T2 would get very little reward.
agreed. +1
With more players it will be a viable option.
More players would eliminate probably 75% of the problems with MM, and help the devs fix the other 25%. The only real justification for tierless matching is an insufficient playerbase.
More players would eliminate probably 75% of the problems with MM, and help the devs fix the other 25%. The only real justification for tierless matching is an insufficient playerbase.
And at the risk of returning to a cyclic argument, it was the implementation of mixed tiers that caused a massive drop in players.
The sheer refusal of the Devs to acknowledge this, to admit they were wrong and to rollback to a system that was more popular and might just help win back disgruntled players is mind boggling. It’s like they want a downward spiral…
Matches should be within one Tier, squads included (30 votes [66.67%])
I think we have been fooled. this does not mean locked tiers, but “1 tier fits all” a.k.a the new Sector Conquest mode.
Matches should be within one Tier, squads included (30 votes [66.67%])
I think we have been fooled. this does not mean locked tiers, but “1 tier fits all” a.k.a the new Sector Conquest mode.
Maybe the meaning got lost in translation?..