222 replies to this topic

[ThatGuy539]

Here is a possible fix...


Add a team leader position to drops. They can't drive a mech in the game, but they can see the map, and see anyone's cockpit on their team. Like when you die.
Their sole job would be to call targets, give direction, and use the big map to place markers for objectives.

I've found that even PUG groups can do well against organized units...even the top tier guys. If they are coordinated, even a little.

I personally have led PUGS to victory, but I don't like doing it as it distracts from my fighting.
It's easier to coordinate after you are dead.


So maybe we can add a 13th person to each side. It could be an optional position, handled by a separate queue. (ya I know...another queue, but I'm just brain storming the idea right now)

People who want to be leaders would add themselves to that queue and wait to be added to an available group in their faction that is queued up to drop.

A group can also drop without the 13th leader slot filled if the timer runs out. And so the drop would be like it is now.

The teams could also choose to not have a leader at all, or if they are a premade or something they could populate that leader spot with someone from their unit.

The leader would get rewards based on how well the team did. (there has to be some incentive)

And...just throwing this out there...maybe their win to loss ratio (just for games that they have been the leader) could be kept. And that could be used to give the players dropping a choice...if there is more than one person available to be the leader for a drop, they could vote on who they want from the people available.

Coordination is the key component in FW. And adding a leader who's sole responsibility is leading their team to victory would help in so many ways.

You'd have people who want to play the leader role.
They'd have a vested interest in winning. (new achievement rewards maybe + the usual CBills and stuff)
They'd be in a better position to coordinate than someone who is also trying to fight, and who can't see what their other teammates see.
Drops should be less frustrating for PUGS and new players. And more challenging for veteran groups.
For the leaders it would be like a real-time version of MechCommander.

Thoughts, suggestions?

Edited by ThatGuy539, 27 April 2016 - 10:40 AM.

[WarHippy]

ThatGuy539, on 27 April 2016 - 10:37 AM, said:

Here is a possible fix...


Add a team leader position to drops. They can't drive a mech in the game, but they can see the map, and see anyone's cockpit on their team. Like when you die.
Their sole job would be to call targets, give direction, and use the big map to place markers for objectives.

I've found that even PUG groups can do well against organized units...even the top tier guys. If they are coordinated, even a little.

I personally have led PUGS to victory, but I don't like doing it as it distracts from my fighting.
It's easier to coordinate after you are dead.


So maybe we can add a 13th person to each side. It could be an optional position, handled by a separate queue. (ya I know...another queue, but I'm just brain storming the idea right now)

People who want to be leaders would add themselves to that queue and wait to be added to an available group in their faction that is queued up to drop.

A group can also drop without the 13th leader slot filled if the timer runs out. And so the drop would be like it is now.

The teams could also choose to not have a leader at all, or if they are a premade or something they could populate that leader spot with someone from their unit.

The leader would get rewards based on how well the team did. (there has to be some incentive)

And...just throwing this out there...maybe their win to loss ratio (just for games that they have been the leader) could be kept. And that could be used to give the players dropping a choice...if there is more than one person available to be the leader for a drop, they could vote on who they want from the people available.

Coordination is the key component in FW. And adding a leader who's sole responsibility is leading their team to victory would help in so many ways.

You'd have people who want to play the leader role.
They'd have a vested interest in winning. (new achievement rewards maybe + the usual CBills and stuff)
They'd be in a better position to coordinate than someone who is also trying to fight, and who can't see what their other teammates see.
Drops should be less frustrating for PUGS and new players. And more challenging for veteran groups.
For the leaders it would be like a real-time version of MechCommander.

Thoughts, suggestions?

I don't know how feasible it would be, but it is something I have often thought would be interesting to try. Not sure how much it would help with current problems, or how you would select the leader. Would too many or too few want to be the leader? Hard to say. Then you have the problem of people not wanting to listen to each other and fights break out. It certainly is a fun idea on paper, but I just don't know that it could be made to work without a lot of headaches.

[Moebius1]

Ian G, on 26 April 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

So you all write: "PGI needs to get solo FW right. If you drop without being in a group, you play solo FW. Shouldn't care if you are in a unit or stuff. But if you are in group, you get to fight in the group queue."

But even then, units could organize and synch drop on planets in the single queue? "Well, look what are the odds of us twelve being in the same drop on this not attacked planet, harhar."

C'mon guy, that issue could easily be fixed by a relatively small amount of code that limits the amount of people from a single unit allowed in a solo drop group. Anybody over X amount of people allowed would have to wait for the next 12 man group. Use your brain.

Maybe you should keep your 2 cents. Harhar.

Edited by Moebius1, 27 April 2016 - 11:12 AM.

[Elendil]

WarHippy, on 27 April 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

I don't know how feasible it would be, but it is something I have often thought would be interesting to try. Not sure how much it would help with current problems, or how you would select the leader. Would too many or too few want to be the leader? Hard to say. Then you have the problem of people not wanting to listen to each other and fights break out. It certainly is a fun idea on paper, but I just don't know that it could be made to work without a lot of headaches.

That's just quibbling. It's an extremely necessary mechanic, all the kinks can be ironed out with just a tiny bit of foresight and planning.
Which probably means it's doomed to fail...

[ThatGuy539]

WarHippy, on 27 April 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

I don't know how feasible it would be, but it is something I have often thought would be interesting to try. Not sure how much it would help with current problems, or how you would select the leader. Would too many or too few want to be the leader? Hard to say. Then you have the problem of people not wanting to listen to each other and fights break out. It certainly is a fun idea on paper, but I just don't know that it could be made to work without a lot of headaches.

Ya, but there doesn't seem to be an ideal answer yet either, so what the heck

The arguing thing...well that happens now. Although it is rare...at least as far as I've seen.
Usually there are a few people who don't listen, or who can't hear for whatever reason. And you'll get that every now and then anyway.

But more often than not I've seen that most people will follow someone who is giving direction. As long as they aren't obviously a total noob, or a jerk. But even in those cases things can go better than if no one was coordinating.

Personally I think the leader thing would be fun from both sides (leader and follower). Most of the game mechanics involved already exist. It's just a matter of fleshing out the details.

[Axeface]

ThatGuy539, on 27 April 2016 - 12:22 PM, said:

Personally I think the leader thing would be fun from both sides (leader and follower). Most of the game mechanics involved already exist. It's just a matter of fleshing out the details.

To judge the effectiveness of a commander mode you just have to look at games that already do it like battlefield 2. The mode in that game was fantastic and more often than not really helped your team if done properly, and people did listen - especially when you could help them advance with strikes, supply drops and uavs. I used to use commander mode a lot in bf2 and it was very satisfying, looking down on a squad leading the team to victory with your help and guidance.

[Threat Doc]

Hey, PGI, just stopping my afternoon of fun in the Inner Sphere to bring you a message BEFORE you destroy the solo queue in FW... why don't you make it so Solo's can start missions on planets? Why does it have to rely on Mercs or Loyalists?

[Randy Poffo]

Kay Wolf, on 27 April 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

Hey, PGI, just stopping my afternoon of fun in the Inner Sphere to bring you a message BEFORE you destroy the solo queue in FW... why don't you make it so Solo's can start missions on planets? Why does it have to rely on Mercs or Loyalists?

As near as I can tell the reasoning goes something like this (with background):

Unit Players: "Man I hate having solo players in our drops, they don't know what they're doing and they're no challenge to beat."

Solo Players: "Yeah we are not enjoying this experience either."

PGI: (after some years of consideration) "Hmm, well perhaps if I split the q's so that solo players can choose not to drop with you unit guys, I can solve both of your problems."

Unit Players: "WTF ARE YOU DOING THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER IF YOU ALLOW THE SEALS A CHOICE THEN THEY WON'T DROP WITH US!!!"

PGI: "Wait I thought you didn't want them to, if you'd just told me that you wanted them in your matches I could have-"

Unit Players: "THE FIRST RULE OF SEAL CLUB IS YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT SEALS. BESIDES THERE ARE NOT MANY SOLO PLAYERS ANYWAY, AND ALSO THERE ARE SO MANY SOLO PLAYERS THAT Q'S WILL GRIND TO A HALT WITHOUT THEM."

PGI: "OK well I guess we shouldn't pursue this any further."

Unit Players: "Man I hate having solo players in our drops, they don't know what they're doing and they're no challenge to beat."

Solo Players: "Yeah we are not enjoying this experience either."

[Threat Doc]

Randy Poffo, on 27 April 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

As near as I can tell the reasoning goes something like this (with background):

Unit Players: "Man I hate having solo players in our drops, they don't know what they're doing and they're no challenge to beat."

Solo Players: "Yeah we are not enjoying this experience either."

PGI: (after some years of consideration) "Hmm, well perhaps if I split the q's so that solo players can choose not to drop with you unit guys, I can solve both of your problems."

Unit Players: "WTF ARE YOU DOING THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER IF YOU ALLOW THE SEALS A CHOICE THEN THEY WON'T DROP WITH US!!!"

PGI: "Wait I thought you didn't want them to, if you'd just told me that you wanted them in your matches I could have-"

Unit Players: "THE FIRST RULE OF SEAL CLUB IS YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT SEALS. BESIDES THERE ARE NOT MANY SOLO PLAYERS ANYWAY, AND ALSO THERE ARE SO MANY SOLO PLAYERS THAT Q'S WILL GRIND TO A HALT WITHOUT THEM."

PGI: "OK well I guess we shouldn't pursue this any further."

Unit Players: "Man I hate having solo players in our drops, they don't know what they're doing and they're no challenge to beat."

Solo Players: "Yeah we are not enjoying this experience either."

[mouth agape] I didn't think about it that way. That's funny as hell, too, and most likely exactly what happened.

Well, I guess I'll wait a while, then, and put together my unit in a month or so, and see how things go, then.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Levon K, on 27 April 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

Please integrate the "Quick Play" mode with community warfare.

That is a terrible idea. There are far, FAR too many people who play MWO on the regular that couldn't care less about (or even outright hate) Faction Warfare. By forcing people who are ill-prepared and/or unwilling to play the mode, you run the very real risk of alienating the vast majority of those that play MWO at all and causing them to leave.

Edit 1:

Kay Wolf, on 27 April 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

Randy Poffo, on 27 April 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

As near as I can tell the reasoning goes something like this (with background):
Unit Players: "Man I hate having solo players in our drops, they don't know what they're doing and they're no challenge to beat."

Solo Players: "Yeah we are not enjoying this experience either."

PGI: (after some years of consideration) "Hmm, well perhaps if I split the q's so that solo players can choose not to drop with you unit guys, I can solve both of your problems."

Unit Players: "WTF ARE YOU DOING THIS IS THE WORST IDEA EVER IF YOU ALLOW THE SEALS A CHOICE THEN THEY WON'T DROP WITH US!!!"

PGI: "Wait I thought you didn't want them to, if you'd just told me that you wanted them in your matches I could have-"

Unit Players: "THE FIRST RULE OF SEAL CLUB IS YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT SEALS. BESIDES THERE ARE NOT MANY SOLO PLAYERS ANYWAY, AND ALSO THERE ARE SO MANY SOLO PLAYERS THAT Q'S WILL GRIND TO A HALT WITHOUT THEM."

PGI: "OK well I guess we shouldn't pursue this any further."

Unit Players: "Man I hate having solo players in our drops, they don't know what they're doing and they're no challenge to beat."

Solo Players: "Yeah we are not enjoying this experience either."

[mouth agape] I didn't think about it that way. That's funny as hell, too, and most likely exactly what happened. Well, I guess I'll wait a while, then, and put together my unit in a month or so, and see how things go, then.

There's no 'most likely' about it. That's pretty much exactly how it happened if you distill all of the discussions down to their very core arguments that are running around the forums.

PGI was *very* reluctant to split the queues in the first place because of the low population (and warned of this exact thing!), but enough folks complained loud and long enough that PGI gave us, the playerbase, exactly what we asked for (note: what we asked for is not what we wanted).

Edit 2:
I would like to also point out that the core problem (Solo/PUGs) wasn't even solved in the first place because quite a few people who wanted to maintain the merc lifestyle without joining a unit created their own 1-person unit. This immediately put them in the Unit Queue where they are facing off against other units.

And by merging the queues, the only people that are now left out are those people like me who want to play Faction Warfare but don't want to make/join a unit nor do they want to take the Loyalty Pledge.

Edited by AnimeFreak40K, 27 April 2016 - 06:58 PM.

[Triordinant]

Levon K, on 27 April 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

Please integrate the "Quick Play" mode with community warfare.

If they do that the vast majority of casuals (which make up 90% of all MWO players) will just find another game to play and MWO will be history. But hey, PGI should try it -after all, it's the only way to be sure...

[Randy Poffo]

Kay Wolf, on 27 April 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

[mouth agape] I didn't think about it that way. That's funny as hell, too, and most likely exactly what happened.

Well, I guess I'll wait a while, then, and put together my unit in a month or so, and see how things go, then.

Thanks for reminding me that the hot fix hadn't gone through yet, and that CTAs were actually popping. They seem to have stopped for the time being, but that may be the last bit of fun I get to have with this game for a long time.

[Randy Poffo]

AnimeFreak40K, on 27 April 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

That is a terrible idea. There are far, FAR too many people who play MWO on the regular that couldn't care less about (or even outright hate) Faction Warfare. By forcing people who are ill-prepared and/or unwilling to play the mode, you run the very real risk of alienating the vast majority of those that play MWO at all and causing them to leave.


There's no 'most likely' about it. That's pretty much exactly how it happened if you distill all of the discussions down to their very core arguments that are running around the forums.

PGI was *very* reluctant to split the queues in the first place because of the low population (and warned of this exact thing!), but enough folks complained loud and long enough that PGI gave us, the playerbase, exactly what we asked for (note: what we asked for is not what we wanted).

Well, not exactly. This is a case like the tricky djinni that grants your wishes but in a form you can't enjoy them - gives you a charm that attracts the opposite sex but makes you impotent, etc. The actual base idea of what they did was very good and I was excited about it.

[AnimeFreak40K]

Randy Poffo, on 27 April 2016 - 06:59 PM, said:

Well, not exactly. This is a case like the tricky djinni that grants your wishes but in a form you can't enjoy them - gives you a charm that attracts the opposite sex but makes you impotent, etc. The actual base idea of what they did was very good and I was excited about it.

The reason why I say PGI gave the playerbase exactly what they asked for is because since Day 1 of FW (back when it was Community Warfare), people asked for the following:
- Loyalty to mean something (that is, if you're joining a faction forever, there should be some meaning behind doing so)
- Mercenaries stop running the show (that is, the success or failure of a faction and/or who that faction fights should not be determined by groups who are going to (or could) be gone in 1-3 weeks)
- Casuals (that is, people who are not in a unit and have no desire to join one) out of FW
- Solos/PUGs separated from each other (Solos/PUGs were tired of getting clubbed and Units wanted a challenge)

For that last point, PGI made it clear that splitting the queue was something that was *NOT* going to happen because of the limited population from the very beginning. The *ONLY* reason why they even entertained the idea at all was the population infusion from the Steam release...but even then, PGI was reluctant because, again, low population.

The fact of the matter is that FW3 delivers all 4 of those points:
- Loyalty means something; you can only accrue Loyalty Points if you pledge loyalty to a faction, and breaking that pledge is painful. Further, it is Loyalists who determine attack lanes (a faction gets 1-2 opponents regardless of how many borders they share)
- Mercenaries, while still able to determine effectiveness of a particular faction due to their size and numbers, can only attack the 1 or 2 opponents...and even then their rewards are adjusted based on population.
- Solos/PUGs don't face off against each other.
- Casuals are now Freelancers and all but locked out of FW unless there is an 'Emergency Call to Arms' (that is, people like me who are not loyalists and are not mercenaries only get a CtA if a match has been looking for people for 3-5 minutes and isn't filled out yet). If the Freelancer wants to change this, then they must pledge loyalty (and thus become a Solo Loyalist) or create (or join) a unit (and thus become a Mercenary or Unit Loyalist).

The end result, however, is not really what people wanted because there were/are a fair number of unintended consequences, such as:
- Casuals/Freelancers are not filling out the Solo Queue in the numbers they used to because I imagine most of them just aren't interested in FW for any number of reasons...and it really is easy to miss the CtA, especially if you're dropping a lot in Quick Play. In other words, by throwing up a wall (implied, perceived or actual) means that folks that mostly stick to QP are less likely to consider experimenting with FW, which is where I imagine the vast majority of the Solo/PUGs were coming from.
- Individuals making 1-person units and going Merc pulls them out of the Solo Queue (it also doesn't solve the PUG-Stomping problem, but if you have a unit tag by your name, I guess folks are less likely to complain about PUGs/Solos?)
- Adding the Scout Mode pulls Solos (and by extension, Freelancers) from the Invasion part of FW because it is a lot faster/easier to fill out 4v4 than it is 12v12.

To be clear, I don't think PGI did any of this to be a bunch of jerks...but I do think they *DID* want to make a point (specifically the population issue).

[Threat Doc]

Here's the problem I see... I have sat for as long as an hour at a time, during a Combat Phase, as a Freelancer, waiting for CtA to pop up, and it hasn't. The few times I've actually been able to get into a CtA as a Freelancer, I have enjoyed the hell out of myself. However, I learned quickly that I don't want to wait a long time for a CtA to come up, so I'll go play a PUG match, come back and wait three to five minutes, go back to a QP match, wait three to five minutes.

I understand the problems behind these queues, but if Solos are never let in to play because there are very bloody few Scouting missions for Solos, and there are absolutely ZERO Invasion/Counter-Attack drops for Solos, then what's happened has nullified what the original intent of separating the queues was in the first place, for Solos to be able to play against other Solos, rather than other units, on the Inner Sphere map, whether in Scouting missions or in Invasion/Counter-Attack. PGI has missed the boat on this one and, without so much as an "ahem!" they're re-merging these queues.

PUG drops cannot compete with unit drops 90% of the time; and, the other 10% are teams on comms and someone with some balls speaks up and says, "here's the plan", and then there remains a good chance the PUG team will get wiped out by the solid team.

If PGI is saying the telemetry is not there to support maintaining separate queues, it's because they didn't implement all of the tools the PUGs needed to run Scouting, Invasion, and Counter-Attack missions against other PUGs. My recommendation for overcoming the faction barrier is to leave the factions out of it, don't even allow PUG teams to join them for one drop. The team that wins gets to support the faction that was losing, so as to even things out. That's how PUGs can have an effect on the map, as Russ said PUGs would in the Solo queue.

This is silly, and it's sad that no one else has seen what PGI forgot, whether accidentally or conveniently, to do here. Good night, I have to be up at 4.

[Randy Poffo]

AnimeFreak40K, on 27 April 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

The end result, however, is not really what people wanted because there were/are a fair number of unintended consequences, such as:
- Casuals/Freelancers are not filling out the Solo Queue in the numbers they used to because I imagine most of them just aren't interested in FW for any number of reasons...and it really is easy to miss the CtA, especially if you're dropping a lot in Quick Play. In other words, by throwing up a wall (implied, perceived or actual) means that folks that mostly stick to QP are less likely to consider experimenting with FW, which is where I imagine the vast majority of the Solo/PUGs were coming from.

Well this is the part I was referring to. If you've tried to q as a freelancer, what I'm saying is that sometimes it's impossible even if you want to. Only solo loyalists can initiate the solo q for a planet. A freelancer can *only* respond to a call to arms. If you are a freelancer you have to sit there for lengths of time hoping for one to pop up, it appears for a fraction of a second before it fills, and disappears. Other times one doesn't pop at all.

That's all a matter of implementation. It shows that freelancers are sitting there wanting to play that q, but are not able to because of the way it was set up. I think people who haven't tried freelancer don't appreciate how frustrating that is, and how ironic it is to then hear about how solo q players have so little interest in playing.

[Randy Poffo]

Kay Wolf, on 27 April 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

Here's the problem I see... I have sat for as long as an hour at a time, during a Combat Phase, as a Freelancer, waiting for CtA to pop up, and it hasn't. The few times I've actually been able to get into a CtA as a Freelancer, I have enjoyed the hell out of myself. However, I learned quickly that I don't want to wait a long time for a CtA to come up, so I'll go play a PUG match, come back and wait three to five minutes, go back to a QP match, wait three to five minutes.

I understand the problems behind these queues, but if Solos are never let in to play because there are very bloody few Scouting missions for Solos, and there are absolutely ZERO Invasion/Counter-Attack drops for Solos, then what's happened has nullified what the original intent of separating the queues was in the first place, for Solos to be able to play against other Solos, rather than other units, on the Inner Sphere map, whether in Scouting missions or in Invasion/Counter-Attack. PGI has missed the boat on this one and, without so much as an "ahem!" they're re-merging these queues.

PUG drops cannot compete with unit drops 90% of the time; and, the other 10% are teams on comms and someone with some balls speaks up and says, "here's the plan", and then there remains a good chance the PUG team will get wiped out by the solid team.

If PGI is saying the telemetry is not there to support maintaining separate queues, it's because they didn't implement all of the tools the PUGs needed to run Scouting, Invasion, and Counter-Attack missions against other PUGs. My recommendation for overcoming the faction barrier is to leave the factions out of it, don't even allow PUG teams to join them for one drop. The team that wins gets to support the faction that was losing, so as to even things out. That's how PUGs can have an effect on the map, as Russ said PUGs would in the Solo queue.

This is silly, and it's sad that no one else has seen what PGI forgot, whether accidentally or conveniently, to do here. Good night, I have to be up at 4.

Actually a lot of people have said it, though we're not apparently the ones who are important. Actually, the No Guts No Galaxy podcast from when the patch was first introduced said a lot of sharp stuff about this - I didn't see that podcast til today, but they said a lot of things I would have said and generally had a very positive outlook for what was being built.

And then like a day later PGI announces it's shut down. So...

[WintahMute]

You guys are pathetic, no one cares about your winy little posts. PGI is **** get over it. The game is still good at least they got something right in the begining.

[Levon K]

Levon K, on 27 April 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

Please integrate the "Quick Play" mode with community warfare.

AnimeFreak40K, on 27 April 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

That is a terrible idea. There are far, FAR too many people who play MWO on the regular that couldn't care less about (or even outright hate) Faction Warfare. By forcing people who are ill-prepared and/or unwilling to play the mode, you run the very real risk of alienating the vast majority of those that play MWO at all and causing them to leave.

Triordinant, on 27 April 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

If they do that the vast majority of casuals (which make up 90% of all MWO players) will just find another game to play and MWO will be history. But hey, PGI should try it -after all, it's the only way to be sure...

You guys are clearly not getting it.

They need to give players the option of participating in CW through the Quick Play mode. It's still optional. You can continue to play the non-consequential and boring old arcade shooter that MWO has been since inception if you like - none of that will change.

For those that wish to participate, you should be able to start a pilot career and become some type of loyalist or mercenary, then progress through the game no matter which game mode is selected (excluding tutorials and private matches of course).

The game mode should dictate the type of "event" or "scenario", but it should not drive whether or not your pilot is "participating" in the universe. Quick play is just a game mode that allows players to jump into a match with very little overhead. Faction play is a more organized type of play that requires a heavier investment. That should be the only difference.

There is no point locking out a significant portion of the player base from participating in this game as a whole.

[Threat Doc]

Randy Poffo, on 27 April 2016 - 09:25 PM, said:

Actually a lot of people have said it, though we're not apparently the ones who are important. Actually, the No Guts No Galaxy podcast from when the patch was first introduced said a lot of sharp stuff about this - I didn't see that podcast til today, but they said a lot of things I would have said and generally had a very positive outlook for what was being built.

And then like a day later PGI announces it's shut down. So...

Oh, really!!! Well, that sort of clenches it, right there.

WintahMute, on 28 April 2016 - 12:19 AM, said:

You guys are pathetic, no one cares about your winy little posts. PGI is **** get over it. The game is still good at least they got something right in the begining.

Back to bed with you, little one... the adults are talking.