70 replies to this topic

[TygerLily]

What if:

Skirmish, Assault, and Conquest queues earned your faction some modest amount of "Campaign Points". Most importantly, outside of CW - include Invasion Mode in the solo queue only and let players net larger sums of Campaign Points. When a game is found, you are taken to the normal planetary attack screen, told if it is "Attacking" or "Defending" and have two minutes to adjust your drop deck (I don't mind the inability to swap modules here as it's been causing me to purchase one set for Mechs now. I would like the ability to check my consumables!) and can team chat, etc. IMO, no need for Counter or Hold Territory because:

These solo Invasion Mode games DO NOT capture or defend planets on the map...they only rack up Campaign Points.

Next, provide an ability for high ranking Faction Loyalists can go in to CW and spend their faction's Campaign Points to open up a planet for attack. This ability is granted for high ranking Loyalists (a Merc or Lone Wolf with equal rank in the same faction does not get this ability) and is limited to one or two attacking campaigns at a time (until these high level Loyalists appear, PGI can just make a few planets unlock every so often as if Loyalists had activated a campaign). When a planet is opened up for attack THEN groups can form to play Invasion Mode.

Being a Loyalist matters because it means you create attacks and gain your Faction territory.

Being a group matters because you can move the map by securing the wins for these campaigns more handily.

How I Think It Could Help:

If Invasion Mode is a regular thing in the main solo queue outside of CW, the broad community can play it (which they should because it's fun! It's what we're here for!). By making it a solo only thing (until an attack is activated), it is then in the realm of the pug player where:

- the rushing meta breaks down due to less coordination
- the build meta will break down a bit as people play whatever and level things even in CW
- the wait times will lower as it's just a game mode that loads people willing to play
- faster games means faster c-bill gain
- the larger available community will mean sync dropping is less effective to ruin the intent here

Concerns:

Good concern from aeroaggie2003 on Reddit: "The devil is in the details (ie, I want take my Stormcrow for a spin but I'm a Davion)."

To alleviate this, playing by faction doesn't have to mean exclusion of your ability to play Mechs.

Maybe you are aligned as Davion and if you play Skirmish, Assault, Conquest, or Invasion in an IS Mech. In that case, your game play earns Campaign Points for your Faction. If you drop in a Clan Mech, then you land on the Clan side but your actions do not earn any Campaign Points for any faction.

This allows you to play what you want but only when you play to your allegiance (which you chose) will you be affecting the world.

Other Uses for Campaign Points/Ideas/Funsies:

1) Allow Campaign Point bonuses and a 5% cbill bonus for playing an iconic Mech to your faction. However, we need to boil that selection down to one representative Mech per weight class (rather than the exhaustive lists used during sales):

Davion: Locust, Enforcer, Jagermech, Victor
FRR: Firestarter, Cicada, Thunderbolt, King Crab
Kurita: Jenner, Hunchy, Dragon, Stalker
Liao: Raven, Vindicator, Cataphract, Banshee
Marik: Raven, Trebuchet, Orion, Aweseome
Steiner: Commando, Centurion, Zeus, Atlas

Etc.

I'd advise going making it variant specific as well (the lore nerds could help sort that out...)

2) Might be fun to allow appropriately ranked Loyalists to activate community wide events using Campaign Points.

- Faction Mechs Sale (using lists above)
- Flash sales of a "favored" Hero mech: Yen-Lo for Liaio, etc.
- Davion Loyalist spends CP to activate a 24-hour challenge to "Kill 25 Kurita Mechs" to get a day of premium or some such, etc.

3) Spend Campaign Points to:

- buff turret health or type
- give your side +10 tons
- the enemy side -10 tons
- decrease your respawn time

etc. etc.


TL;DR. Don't believe in it...It ain't Tolstoy. Just read it lol...

Edited by TygerLily, 12 May 2015 - 07:29 AM.

[TygerLily]

PS...rereading for errors, I thought my tone was "anti teams" which I'm not! "Anti meta" which I'm not! I partake in both of these things but the main goal was to address the population problems and bring the solo players in to the mix in games that are more fair.

EDIT: I also removed the controversial point from the OP and am placing it here since it was the bane of my suggestion.

Initially I said:
"So back in Feb last year Paul said that 84% play solo. 16% are groups (8% being 2-mans, 4% being 3-mans, 4% being 4-mans). IE, the group play was fraction of the MWO experience."

Don't miss the forest for the trees people...

Edited by TygerLily, 12 May 2015 - 07:22 AM.

[Vamboozle]

Actually quite like this as an idea (or similar)

I am concerned that CW is increasingly becoming about the very small handful of organised teams rather than the vast majority of solo players (wouldn't be surprised if it was around 85%)

The idea of a) using the existing non-CW maps and allowing everyone to contribute to the state of the universe can only be a good thing.

By all means still have a mode designed for the "hardcore team players" but also have a mode where the more casual solo players can contribute.

[wanderer]

If soloer/PUGs can have equal influence vs.12-mans, CW breaks down in turn. Teams > all else in CW, which is how it should remain.

What should go in is not 12-man content,but smaller player number CW-specific modes that use public queue maps, modified for CW. This no longer treads on 12-man toes and gives small groups/PUGs reasonable places to play.

4 player,3-man drop deck, 15 minute fights for 5% of the influence a 12man win delivers, anyone?

[TygerLily]

wanderer, on 15 January 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

If soloer/PUGs can have equal influence vs.12-mans, CW breaks down in turn. Teams > all else in CW, which is how it should remain.

What should go in is not 12-man content,but smaller player number CW-specific modes that use public queue maps, modified for CW. This no longer treads on 12-man toes and gives small groups/PUGs reasonable places to play.

My idea is to simply have some way for solo play to influence the larger map. In my case, I suggested that mechanic be "1) All players outside CW to gain resources for your faction 2) Spend resources to make an attack inside CW"

I added the caveat that Skirmish, Conquest, and Assault provide these resources when played by groups or solo players.
The inclusion of Invasion outside CW for solo players only was to allow the mode to have more exposure to the majority's playstyle (which is solo).

The way I am reading your comment is that you disagree with the magnitude in which solo players can direct CW. I can sympathize. My idea is to give 100% control of the attacks to the people (well, PGI...until high ranking Loyalists gain the levels to represent their Faction). Is it your opinion that rather than the Campaign Points mechanic be used to launch attacks they instead allow Factions to pick a planet and spend points to buff it, or some such?
Then you are playing for resources but only to make your faction tougher and allowing PGI to direct the attacks.

Edited by TygerLily, 15 January 2015 - 12:48 PM.

[Fox Kell]

Some pretty interesting ideas in here, keep it up

[Lily from animove]

thats the entire issue with CW at the moment, it caters larger groups, and would probably work with 2 factions. but with the minority of players being divided in many factions as we have on such a big scaled map is just making the entire CW what it is now: rather dead. CW is a good concept, sure still with sflaws, but with the current community size its too big scaled.
Then further the unit only group thing I said from the beginnign being not good has its effect too

maybe PGI should have introduced a smaller scale at the beginning, like only 2 clans and 2 IS factions, or 3 each.

the 20th of januray will bring some good changes because there is no need to pug anymore. everyone cna now go to a public or other units TS and play with them.
And the steam release that is planned for mid of the year may also help to populate the game a lot.

i just hope PGI announces this at least 4 weeks earlier so that we as the community can prepare some proper guides helping the steam games getting into the game easier.

[Davegt27]

I like your Ideas but I am starting to realize they have their hands full with the modified assault mode they have now

I think the game will be sold in a year
And they will move on to new projects

[Xetelian]

If only they had added dropship mode in the regular queue

[Budor]

I support this.

PGI needs to come up with a solution how to integrate the old gamemodes and queues (group & solo) into CW. We need all players/every match being part of CW to support the scope/planetary queues.

Roughly:

IS solo player in IS mech clicks play, gets a random gamemode (if selection would hinder matchmaker too much) earns loyalty points and affects map.

IS solo player in Clan mech clicks play, gets a random gamemode does not earn loyalty points and does not affect map.


Dont know how much of an issue the missing option for mixed clan/is decks in group queue would pose to the community. Probably oceans of tears

[Roadbeer]

TygerLily, on 15 January 2015 - 11:39 AM, said:

So back in Feb last year Paul said that 84% play solo. 16% are groups (8% being 2-mans, 4% being 3-mans, 4% being 4-mans). IE, the group play was fraction of the MWO experience.

I had to stop reading right here.

This stat is widely known as bullshit. What Paul said was "Launches" not "Players". So if a 12man group launched, it counted as 1 launch, if a 4 man launched, it counted as 1 launch, and if a solo launched, it was 1 launch.

Also, at that time, grouping was limited to 4 players, so if you had more than 4 players, you were forced to sync. So a 4 man and a solo would both launch at the same time to sync, that would be a 50/50 ratio of solos to groups.

[TygerLily]

Roadbeer, on 15 January 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

I had to stop reading right here.

This stat is widely known as bullshit. What Paul said was "Launches" not "Players". So if a 12man group launched, it counted as 1 launch, if a 4 man launched, it counted as 1 launch, and if a solo launched, it was 1 launch.

Also, at that time, grouping was limited to 4 players, so if you had more than 4 players, you were forced to sync. So a 4 man and a solo would both launch at the same time to sync, that would be a 50/50 ratio of solos to groups.

I think your editorializing with unfounded statements like "widely known" and that by speaking with so much hyperbole you undercuts your argument.

Regardless, the end point is that a majority of people solo drop. I don't find that hard to believe and therefore making things revolve more around the solo player experience isn't a wrong approach.

EDIT:
Hypothetically, if the stat was for 300,000 "launches" then:

84% of 300,000 is 252,000 launches and players

8% of 300,000 is 24,000 launches...times 2 people is 48,000 players

4% of 300,000 launches is 12,000 launches...times 3 people is 36,000 players

4% of 300,000 launches is 12,000 launches...times 4 people is 48,000 players

Edited by TygerLily, 15 January 2015 - 06:36 PM.

[Kjudoon]

The 84% is garbage.
Why? Go into the solo queue and see anywhere from 40 to 80% of the names with unit tags. The 84% was in a pre unit measure and the composition of the player base has shifted since then.

[Razimir]

Just make dropping in CW worth it, more CBills. Waiting 10 minutes for 100k cbills is not actually very good income...

-Razi

Edited by Razimir, 15 January 2015 - 08:11 PM.

[TygerLily]

Kjudoon, on 15 January 2015 - 07:06 PM, said:

The 84% is garbage.
Why? Go into the solo queue and see anywhere from 40 to 80% of the names with unit tags. The 84% was in a pre unit measure and the composition of the player base has shifted since then.

But they are still solo dropping. It's not a measure of how many are in a unit but how many, unit or not, are dropping alone.

[Kjudoon]

Then the stat is still garbage with no relevance to CW. I know sync drops are happening constantly within multi unit groups. This also will skew data to give the illusion more solo players are jouning in when they're really grouped.

[Tarl Cabot]

Truth be told when everything started I believed the solo/group queue was going to be part of the CW and not separated like it is in is current setting with the group queue portion being the part of the CW setting. (shrugs)

I can see why it is not that way. Currently on planetary/minor/major faction lobbies, no NPC canon units, etc. It is something that is still on the plate but from both coding and engineering aspects may be down the road. And until PGI provides updated details all we can do is to continue to ask for them.

[TygerLily]

Kjudoon, on 15 January 2015 - 08:32 PM, said:

Then the stat is still garbage with no relevance to CW. I know sync drops are happening constantly within multi unit groups. This also will skew data to give the illusion more solo players are jouning in when they're really grouped.

Knowing that a majority are solo is highly relevant as the "hardcore mode" nature of CW cater to groups.

If you mean sync dropping in CW then I agree...that would skew numbers (but will remedied soon with mixed units). If you mean sync dropping at the time of the poll, you should read above about "launches" vs "players" as we covered this ground!

Edited by TygerLily, 16 January 2015 - 09:41 AM.

[Kjudoon]

That's a fair statement. I think the faction tab will end the need for a lot of sync dropping but is fundamentally the same thing.

[Joseph Mallan]

TygerLily, on 15 January 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think your editorializing with unfounded statements like "widely known" and that by speaking with so much hyperbole you undercuts your argument.

Regardless, the end point is that a majority of people solo drop. I don't find that hard to believe and therefore making things revolve more around the solo player experience isn't a wrong approach.

EDIT:
Hypothetically, if the stat was for 300,000 "launches" then:

84% of 300,000 is 252,000 launches and players

8% of 300,000 is 24,000 launches...times 2 people is 48,000 players

4% of 300,000 launches is 12,000 launches...times 3 people is 36,000 players

4% of 300,000 launches is 12,000 launches...times 4 people is 48,000 players

This depends on if you willing to completely ignore the exaggerations. Because the statement is exaggerated does not make it completely wrong.

If I say "What a F*ing mess!" when I spill a cup of pop. I'm exaggerating, but it is still a mess!

Also a factor of How many launches a group has. the Stats are not Completely accurate to the affect Groups have. Cause what the numbers don't show, Is how long the Groups are in TeamSpeak discussing builds, BSing, Waiting for Billy/Billie to get back from a Bio break or putting his/her child to bed/fed or a smoke break. Solo players don;t have to wait for ONE person to drop. Groups of any size do. The you also have the fact that Groups will have players ask, "Hold on. I'm going to buy a Griffin." Then wait while that Mech is bought, reconfigured, Reconfigured again cause he didn't like the look of the load out.