30 replies to this topic

[xX PUG Xx]

I feel it is time to "simplify" Faction Play and consolidate the features of the game that exist in the hopes of creating a more enticing and entertaining game mode for a wider audience.

My main idea revolves around boiling down the Inner Sphere map to it's important worlds; regional capitals, manufacturing worlds and faction capitals. Incorporating the larger QP maps into FP, including Assault mode (asymmetrical or the existing version), then grouping maps by planet climate type (hot, cold, temperate, non-terran). My hope would be that this would allow for a fair knowledge of which type of map a player is likely to find themselves upon and thus improving the functionality of the fixed Drop Deck system.

For example:

Clan Ghost Bear invades Radstadt in the FRR, the planet is a temperate world with mainly those map types with a smaller percentage of cold maps. So if we kept to the 6 map rotation of the current FP screen, this would give us Hellebore Springs, Emerald Taiga, Crimson Straits, Forest Colony, Boreal Vault and Alpine Peaks as a 70/30% (ish) split of temperate/cold, with the 50/50 chance of either Invasion or Assault and a reasonable idea of what the map temperature is going to be. This way a pilot choosing to participate in FP on that planet has the ability to plan ahead and set his/her two drop decks to cover as many options as possible, therefore increasing the functionality of the Drop Deck system and simultaneously increasing the likelihood of players purchasing more DD's.

I am not a programmer so I have no idea how much work would be required to carry out this alteration, although I do realize the "categorising" of planets would require some effort, hence the "watering down" of the number of planets to only those deemed as important.

If a system such as this was incorporated into FP, would it be enough to entice old FP players to return and does it sound like something new players would find interesting enough to try? Even if you think my initial idea is poorly thought out and have tweaks or full scale alterations that you feel would improve upon it, please post them and generate interest in this discussion.

The more views and posts, the more likely PGI will take note.

[iLLcapitan]

Well spoken, it could be rather easy. We don't ask for much.
Make it campaign after campaign (one month or smth) - only 2 buckets to choose - use leaderboards to somehow determine powerhouses force powerhouses to different sides - endless provision of conflicts from fluff/ lore - is vs is / clan vs clan events - *edit* more maps/QP maps- *edit2* distinguish beeing merc from beeing loyalist - happiness-

Edited by iLLcapitan, 24 August 2016 - 08:34 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

I was only aiming for an improvement of the actual matches and their variety, not looking into the wider "meta" side of the Loyalist/Merc/Lone Wolf differences. I feel that if we can at least make the mode more interesting, then the rest can be looked at a future date and we at least have a more entertaining FP to play while those details are rehashed.

Once the planets are grouped by type it will also make it easier for PGI map designers to prioritise which ones are required to fill out planets and modes, hopefully this will mean maps are produced in a more timely fashion and in turn increase diversity for both QP and FP.

[WANTED]

Yes please. Simplify FW and direct players into 2 buckets. Should have been this way starting out. Once it got popular, then they could have added in all the factions. Most MMO games have events, historical recreations, etc. We get these but such delay between them timewise. It's been proven in here that events draw the crowds and personal rewards on top of that. That UI is still a mystery to me after years.

[Dreadcore]

OK. So yeah this is a quick post as FP/QP population balance and game mode is an easy fix... (thank PUG )

iLLcapitan, on 24 August 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

only 2 buckets to choose

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this. While choice is good I think that current setup of QP (multiple modes) and FP (multiple modes) and the factions (multiple options) dilutes the player base and leave us with too much choice and not enough consistent games / direction for newer players. I wonder that if all current games modes (QP/FP) were intergrated into FP and had a varying degree of impact on the Inner sphere, by varying the points for a capture/ defence of a planet, we could achieve that happy medium of FP offering both quick brawl drops and tactical mission drops.

xX PUG Xx, on 24 August 2016 - 05:40 AM, said:

My main idea revolves around boiling down the Inner Sphere map to it's important worlds; regional capitals, manufacturing worlds and faction capitals. Incorporating the larger QP maps into FP, including Assault mode (asymmetrical or the existing version), then grouping maps by planet climate type (hot, cold, temperate, non-terran). My hope would be that this would allow for a fair knowledge of which type of map a player is likely to find themselves upon and thus improving the functionality of the fixed Drop Deck system.

So I like this idea and it could be based on a linear route on the inner sphere map. At its simplest each world could be a gateway to the next in the route to the capital (via the important worlds). Involving the drop decks and grouping the map types is a great idea - I don’t even mind some re-skinned maps if that cuts work (Ice up - Caustic valley / tropical - polar highlands)!

I do believe that MWO needs the focus to shift a towards a development of FP - its ripe for new mission types that could integrate with the drop decks and open up each weight classes validity in the game eg:

Raids - damaging a facility before the defenders find you (attackers have less tonnage and a time limit).
Escort - protecting a delivery from raiders (weight class, instant loose/fail condition and time limitations).
Vanguard - stopping enemy mechs hitting your forces from an unguarded flank (weight limitations).

Now with, or without, these mission types could be mixed with current QP skirmish/assault/capture (with some slight tuning) and faction play current modes and make a much more immersive FP mode.

Current QP could be developed into Solaris– just saying

Drop decks could be used for all missions - the drop deck being exactly what it sound like - the mechs you have available on this planet.

All IMO

Edited by Dreadcore, 24 August 2016 - 10:49 AM.

[xX PUG Xx]

I think the goal here should be to make FP as easy for a player or group to get “into” an Invasion or Scout mission as it can be made, while obviously keeping it within the realms of the BT universe and the Inner Sphere setting.

If PGi were to take my suggestion above and dilute the number of planets in each faction down and grouping the maps by definition of planet type, it would be a step toward streamlining and hopefully making the whole FP experience more appealing to a larger proportion of the player base. At the moment the vast majority of the players are in the Quick play mode, what we need to ask is why and what can be learnt from that to improve the appeal of FP? The most glaring reason I can think of is the ease in which a player can get into a match and this has nothing to do with the number of players in the QP queues as these numbers are not visible. When a player chooses to click on the big green button on the top right of their screen they are simply interested in getting into a game and shooting stuff in their big stompy robot. What happens once they are into that game it can be as simple or complicated as they want it to be but the initial actions of selecting a ‘Mech and clicking on Quick Play is straight forward.

Faction Play is hurt by the multitude of choices present in its design; choose a Faction, choose a planet to attack or defend, choose to play in Scout or Invasion mode and each choice dilutes the player base while not providing enough quick, clear information for the average player to make good choices.More importantly it makes it difficult to quickly get into a match and do what we all really want to do, play the game.

So here is a streamlined idea for getting a player into a Faction Play game.

(Based upon the premise that the single “attack/defend” planet discussed at the Round Table is implemented along with the Faction alliance vote and my suggestion of having planetary information linked to the map types and modes on a particular planet)

• A player chooses to sign for Ghost Bear as a Loyalist and looks to see what action is happening.
• The Clan has voted to attack FRR and the planet Radstadt is in contention; the player can see the maps and modes listed for the Invasion and Scout modes listed under the planetary information.
• He can now choose to setup his Drop Deck to cover as many eventualities as possible for these maps and decide whether to play Invasion or Scout by simply selecting the appropriate DD.
• Once ready he simply clicks on the Faction “Quick Launch” button and the Match Maker begins the search for a match on the planet.
• If the Faction has elected to ally itself with another, the MM can also search for an appropriate match on the planet of that ally.

Using this setup there is a total of 6 buckets/queues for any given player but all he needs to do is click “Quick Launch” and the MM does the rest, virtually the same way the QP MM does. Now this player can (hopefully) get into a FP match with the minimum of effort and with the incorporation of the larger QP maps has a good variety of match types to expect.

Obviously this does not address the “content” issue of FP or fully address the map design of the existing FP layouts but it would provide a decent mix and a good middle ground to keep players interested while PGI work on bringing more map and mission types to both FP and QP. Since both modes share some assets any additions to one can be used in the other with minimal effort, this can only be seen as a win-win for both players and PGI.

Have I explained this better and what are your thoughts?

[Pahrias]

yes yes and more yes. ive been thinking more or less the same for quite a while now. my idea was to merge the FP and QP queues, so that you can just click on QL and away you go. all game modes with 4 mechs, (minus scouting, tho id be happy if that was removed, but different story) loyalists would choose the planet then MM would do the rest. but your idea does sound better.

[Surn]

Limiting choices just destroys faction play for small groups who can no longer take planets.

[xX PUG Xx]

Surn, on 25 August 2016 - 05:49 AM, said:

Limiting choices just destroys faction play for small groups who can no longer take planets.

I understand your concern, being the leader of a small unit myself but tagging planets and the rewards side of the mode is something that could be looked at again at a later date. It was another suggestion that I have seen and discussed myself that the rewards for capturing a planet be a shared resource amongst the top 3-5 contributors, even using a CBill "pot" to augment those rewards for a wider group of contributors.

For the moment I am more concerned with getting as many players as possible into FP games, thus making it easier for EVERYONE to find a match. In my opinion getting to play matches on a more consistent basis is a more important target for the short term. The one thing I am sure anyone that wants to play FP would agree on is that the easier it is to find matches the better and if we can make those matches both more interesting and varied (within limits) the better for us all.

[tacorodwarrior]

I Like the Idea. Makes it simple. Makes matches quicker. Involves more players. You cant go wrong.

[Terrorsdawn]

tacorodwarrior, on 25 August 2016 - 07:03 AM, said:

I Like the Idea. Makes it simple. Makes matches quicker. Involves more players. You cant go wrong.

It's PGI! Wana bet on that?


Not of fan of reducing anything when it would be easy to just add a few things people have asked for in numerous posts on these forms. Bringing people into or back into the game would solve bucket problems rather well.

ONCE THE BUCKETS ARE GONE, YOU MAY NEVER GET THEM BACK.

I do like your ideas though and can only hope we get something like this when the axe comes to FP again.

Edited by Terrorsdawn, 25 August 2016 - 07:16 AM.

[exiledangel]

i love this idea pug. If any one remembers mechwarriorleagues for MechWarrior 4 mercs the planetry league was set up with every planet in the IS with planet description, planet type, and climate. so attacking a desert planeted you ended up with desert maps for the battles. And to top it off there are planet description for all the planets already on the internet

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

We've bee down this road 100 times.

Until the core gameplay is fixed, none of the rest of the stuff matters.

"So if we kept to the 6 map rotation of the current FP screen"
Boring repetitive chokepoint gameplay. aka NOT FUN

Buckets aren't the problem.
The number of people in the buckets is the problem.

[xX PUG Xx]

The Nerf Bat, on 25 August 2016 - 07:54 AM, said:

We've bee down this road 100 times.

Until the core gameplay is fixed, none of the rest of the stuff matters.

"So if we kept to the 6 map rotation of the current FP screen"
Boring repetitive chokepoint gameplay. aka NOT FUN

Buckets aren't the problem.
The number of people in the buckets is the problem.

You didn't read the full post, either of them

I suggested incorporating the larger QP maps and seeding them into the FP segment rotation to bring a little diversity to the map selections. Yes I agree that the existing FP maps require a "makeover" but this is something that is not going to be a quick fix and simply removing them with nothing to replace them will not improve our gaming experience in the short term.

[MovinTarget]

While they're at it, add a section in the Training Academy on:

-How to open a gate (hint, you don't just shoot the gate)

- How to shoot an O-gen (look for the freaking opening)

- How to shoot OMEGA (you laugh but....)

- BONUS: How to be aware of incoming enemy dropships.

Edited by MovinTarget, 25 August 2016 - 09:17 AM.

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

xX PUG Xx, on 25 August 2016 - 08:15 AM, said:

You didn't read the full post, either of them

I suggested incorporating the larger QP maps and seeding them into the FP segment rotation to bring a little diversity to the map selections. Yes I agree that the existing FP maps require a "makeover" but this is something that is not going to be a quick fix and simply removing them with nothing to replace them will not improve our gaming experience in the short term.

Yes i read the whole post.

Do you think incorporating QP maps into FW would be quick and simple for PGI?
It's going to take them a month just to fix the flippin dropdecks.

[MovinTarget]

The Nerf Bat, on 25 August 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

Yes i read the whole post.

Do you think incorporating QP maps into FW would be quick and simple for PGI?
It's going to take them a month just to fix the flippin dropdecks.

Nobody is expecting wholesale changes this year...

[xX PUG Xx]

The Nerf Bat, on 25 August 2016 - 09:09 AM, said:

Yes i read the whole post.

Do you think incorporating QP maps into FW would be quick and simple for PGI?
It's going to take them a month just to fix the flippin dropdecks.

Everything is relative, it would possibly be quicker than redesigning every map and mode for FP and reprogramming every other complaint. I am simply looking for a way to improve the quality of game time current FP players put into the game, while hopefully bringing enough of a change to encourage old FP players and those wishing to try it. I understand it is hard to look past the negativity that we have all built up but simply shouting no, no, no every time someone tries to start a constructive conversation will not improve things.

Do you think these changes would improve the mode or do you have a simple change that might help to improve things, think of it in terms of incremental "baby-steps" that build toward a better experience for all rather than grand sweeping changes?

Edited by xX PUG Xx, 25 August 2016 - 09:58 AM.

[A Shoddy Rental Mech]

Do I want Faction warfare based on quickplay maps?
Yes.
Do I want rewards based on units contribution and not winner take all?
Yes.
There's another dozen changes I'd like to see.

Problem is:
It's been 28 days since the Faction Warfare community round table. Everybody pitched ideas to Russ on how to make things better. I'm not saying your ideal are any better or worse than anybody elses.
What did we get in the last patch? PGI managed to make Faction Warfare worse.

Baby steps? 1 step forward, 1 step back. That's not progress. PGI response? Have to wait another month to fix WHAT THEY EFFED UP.

Shows you how high a priority Faction Warfare is. Customer satisfaction? Phhhht.

Edited by The Nerf Bat, 25 August 2016 - 03:15 PM.

[Terrorsdawn]

The Nerf Bat, on 25 August 2016 - 03:14 PM, said:

Do I want Faction warfare based on quickplay maps?
Yes.
Do I want rewards based on units contribution and not winner take all?
Yes.
There's another dozen changes I'd like to see.

Problem is:
It's been 28 days since the Faction Warfare community round table. Everybody pitched ideas to Russ on how to make things better. I'm not saying your ideal are any better or worse than anybody elses.
What did we get in the last patch? PGI managed to make Faction Warfare worse.

Baby steps? 1 step forward, 1 step back. That's not progress. PGI response? Have to wait another month to fix WHAT THEY EFFED UP.

Shows you how high a priority Faction Warfare is. Customer satisfaction? Phhhht.

We'll said!