worn bay
My most fun match was when everyone were forced to play playstyle - chaos. This playstyle loses meaning if the players can pick or not willingly. The beauty of ordered chaos is if everyone plays it.
Let us select before match what playstyle we want to play and match accordingly.
viral wren
I hear you, though we tried this originally, and players didn't like being forced into it.
We think the current design struck a nice balance where players can opt out but it's optimal to opt in (Ordered Chaos is very strong with +6 starting income).
When I play classic these days, around half the time players vote against Ordered Chaos, even though it's optional 🫤
abstract wasp
I hear you, though we tried this originally, and players didn't like being force...
I don't want to play chaos, so why would I make it so that chaos players have an advantage over me in my match?
in that same vein, most people do vote for super fiesta because the super fiesta gold does benefit them, regardless of what mastermind they're playing
tulip dagger
I don't want to play chaos, so why would I make it so that chaos players have an...
Because it keeps your fellow players happy. Happy players play more. More players = a larger community. A larger community is better for the game in a number of ways.
abstract wasp
To be clear, I was more demonstrating why people don't vote ordered chaos in, not why I specifically don't vote ordered chaos in
tulip dagger
Yeah, understood. Your comment very much read as devil's advocate. But my reply is an answer either way ("I am in a group. Why should I do things that benefit the group if they do not immediately benefit me?" -> because benefits to the group 'trickle down' to the individuals in the group).
abstract wasp
Sure, in a perfect world we should vote it on just to make other players happy, but we don't, people don't. That logic could easily be applied to say, the income and chill debate, the save meta, etc etc
It was a response to Jules saying people vote against it "even though it's optional"
where I highlighted that, if they don't play chaos, it's in their own interest to do so
uneven nest
Yeah, understood. Your comment very much read as devil's advocate. But my reply ...
Are you really saying "You shouldn't listen to your own tastes but to MINES"? 😄
Because if i was forced to play chaos I wouldn't be happy and I would play less, for sure
tulip dagger
we tried this originally, and players didn't like being forced into it.
We think the current design struck a nice balance where players can opt out but it's optimal to opt in (Ordered Chaos is very strong with +6 starting income).
verbal osprey
I don't like being forced into auto sending. I've never used it, and I quit after playing one game of auto and chill.
warm trellis
You don't have to auto send while that mode is active, though. You are incentivized to not have any mythium above 19 pooled up once the wave ends. That's not the same as having it forced upon you.
In fact, most classics I've been in since the voting was implemented, have ended specifically because one team decided to specifically accept the saving penalty for 4 or 5 waves straight.
verbal osprey
You don't have to auto send while that mode is active, though. You are incentivi...
saving 2 waves used to be enough to do at least significant damage and boost your own economy. Sometimes it was even enough for the win. Now you save for 4-5? First of all that seems excessively sweaty. Second, good luck trying to convince randoms to save now. There's always at least one guy who wants to auto send for the gold. You're basically all in at that point, if Randy McRandom sends drakes and snails to his opponent and they hold, managing to chip away at the other 3 saves and the king survives, you lose the game.
verbal osprey
You don't have to auto send while that mode is active, though. You are incentivi...
So while you're technically right and I'm not forced to auto send, I don't see shorter saves working out anymore with this mechanic. Auto send was a feature which was added a couple years after release, before that there was no shift clicking or auto send.
We had to spam buttons on our keyboard or click the icons. When it was introduced I was already against it, because it was only feeding your opponents, but I still thought it might be good for new players. Now the new players effectively forced it upon me and others by majority vote. Being "encouraged" to use it, or more accurately penalized for not using it, is a step too far in my opinion.
In short, I support OP's suggestion to let us search for the modes we prefer before the game. That would solve all my problems and I finally might install the game again. I don't mind waiting 2-5 minutes for a blitz or ordered chaos game. Just let me play the way I want to play.
warm trellis
I'm seeing a lot of stuff here that I'd normally debate you on, but I also feel like you've made up your mind and the bulk of it wouldn't be productive
The devs do appreciate the feedback, whether it's positive or negative
tulip dagger
In short, I support OP's suggestion to let us search for the modes we prefer *be...
What if you knew before you queued what the match was going to be (income and chill on or off, blitz, ordered chaos, etc; ie:no pre-match vote) and the match parameters rotated every few minutes/hours/w/e. Would you play again then (just not while the match mode was one you dislike)?
Personally I'm finding I dislike the vote. I would much rather know before I queue what the match was going to be, rather than queuing for a mystery game only to find after the vote that I really don't want to play the game that was voted for (and on the other side I would queue much more often for modes I like if I could be assured the game wouldn't turn into a mode I didn't like after the queue).
In other words (since multiple queues are 'not an option'): Would you prefer to be guaranteed both 'good' modes and 'bad' modes on a rotating basis (sometimes you queue, sometimes you sit it out) or the current voting system where you have to queue before knowing the mode and are stuck with whatever gets voted in.
verbal osprey
I think multiple queues are absolutely an option and some people are just delusional.
Rotation seems fine I guess, but I'd still love the option to choose. If it takes 5 minutes to find a game in a less popular mode - so be it.
Income and chill will basically be unaffected, because 80-90% of players already play that mode and that mode only.
Maybe we could have two queues, the main "income and chill" queue, aswell as a rotating queue with blitz, super fiesta and ordered chaos, and also whatever other modes there are.
tulip dagger
The devs have stated additional queues is not happening (#1097782156849315871 message). That said I also think match making could be improved so players could choose what they want to play and only queue for those modes all in a single queue. But that'd require a matchmaking rework that matches players not only on elo but also on preferred mode. Given that we don't have that yet a rotating queue is entirely possible basically now.
If more players dislike the vote maybe the rotation system could be an improvement. However, if only 1 player dislikes the vote changing to a rotation system probably wouldn't be an improvement. I'm just trying to test the waters at this point before formulating a proper suggestion.
verbal osprey
The devs have stated additional queues is not happening (https://discord.com/cha...
I know, which is sad, why I called them delusional.
warm trellis
I don't have data on which modes are more commonly voted for than others. My empirical experiences suggest Auto-Chill is overwhelmingly popular, but I'm also overwhelmingly just one person.
If we are to make preliminary evals based on empirics however, this would suggest the majority of the players like current auto-chill metas. Which would mean changing that would disrupt the majority of the people who are okay, in order to attempt to please a minority camp who is being advocated for by someone who openly calls the devs delusional, and who hasn't even installed the game in weeks.
Perhaps a poll of some sort would be a good place to start. Figure out how many people are on one side of the fence versus the other
tulip dagger
Though, to be completely fair, auto and chill is not being voted for at anywhere near 100% rate. Which indicates fowst is not the only one who wants non-chill games.
warm trellis
We need less feels and more realz. Otherwise it's just going to be he-said, she-said, "I want this vs I want that."
tulip dagger
🤷You asked for a vote. We already have a vote before each game. Unless fowst has been lying to us and is actually running dozens or hundreds of smurfs (often playing in the same match) then fowst is not the only one who votes against auto and chill.
warm trellis
I'm being as nice as I know how to phrase this -- you take things WAY too literally
I'll suggest to the devs that they should send out an in-game poll on how people feel about income-and-chill as a vote option
verbal osprey
I'll suggest to the devs that they should send out an in-game poll on how people...
which isn't gonna reach the 100s of players who quit playing after auto and chill was introduced. It's like doing a poll inside north korea and asking them how they feel about their leader. The small minority who fled aren't gonna be able to voice their opinions. (Not like a small minority opinion matters anyways)
brittle swallow
