17 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

There are many problems with faction play, invasion game mode being one of them. However I am not going to focus on that nor do I intend to give a fully fleshed out reworking.

What I want to know is what restrictions on Mechs and play style people are willing to accept.

One problem with FP is that mech destruction does not matter. Simply drop again with the same drop deck, nothing carries over and therefore how well you did in a fight does not matter.

Currently FP uses all the mechs you bought if of the right type i.e. IS or clan.

To add risk to faction play if a mech gets destroyed it should have to be repaired.

Also a mech should be a valuable resource and so risking it should be risky.

So would it be acceptable for FP to use a separate pool of Mechs from the quick play pool? Thereby limiting the mechs available to play

For example: You might have 100 mechs available in quick play. But you have to pay a fee to make it available in FP (does not effect availability in Quick play). In FP that mech needs to pay for rearm and repair. You can only select from FP mech for FP and there is a limit on the number of mechs (say 4) that you can have available in FP.

[DevlinCognito]

What would I give up for Faction Play?

PGI

/end thread

[Bud Crue]

Not sure what you are getting at with your question or OP. None off the problems that most of the community seem to have with FP have anything to do with specific mechs or mech selection. Rather the problems all seem to stem from things like: the "same ole, same ole" game play of the same 6 maps, the same choke points; the Long Tom mechanic; the lack of meaningful consequence for taking or losing a planet, the lack of any motivation to be a member of one faction over another, the overt benefit of being a mercenary over a loyalist, the punishment imposed on large units, etc.

To answer your question as best as I can: I'd be willing to "give up" any of a variety of mech choices, or be limited to a pool of only a few mechs if I thought it would actually help address any of the actual problems with FP. I just don't understand what mech selection has to do with those actual problems.

[Greyhart]

Lack of variety is the major problem. But I am not addressing that.

I think an underlying problem with interest is the lack of a personal narrative. In order to make a meaningful personal narrative you have to have some adversity, so additional strategy a bit more I do this or I do that.

One of the ways of doing this might be in the creation of a pilot that has to manage his limited resources. That's not possible with the current unlimited and without consequence access to all bought mechs.

Building from a low base to be better in FP is not possible as in reality starting with a line up of all the mechs you've bought and upgraded is not a challenge.

[Macbrea]

The issue with your plan is there is no way to flee a map if you are losing. So, you will lose that mech. If you could run out of bounds and not explode that may be fine. But once you get to say 24 vs 38.. the side with 10 mechs left know they have lost and should flee not send in new mechs.

I posted a fix for faction play that would make all matches count for something. Including the fact that quickplay matches should effect the movement of the map.

[KinLuu]

I do not like this idea. I do not like punishment handed out to players. I rather would like players getting encouraged by additional rewards. These rewards could for example be additional CBill payout for using a specific mech, if your faction has access to a planet with a factory for said mech. Maybe you could also scale said additional rewards with the number of factories owned.

Repair and rearm was banished from this game for good, never shall it return.

[Jables McBarty]

This is an excellent idea if you are trying to drive more players away from FP.

FP suffers first from fundamentally stale and limited gameplay, second from lack of immersion.

R&R is not a great way to approach immersion. If anything, give certain bonuses (cheaper purchase, cheaper equipment, Cbill bonus) for using "faction friendly" 'mechs (like the EJB for SJ; the Vindi for Liao). But penalizing players for going into FP will just drive away more people with cursory interest.

But first, if PGI is going to put more resources towards FP, it should be towards more variety of game modes and maps.

[Bud Crue]

I think with the mode as it exists, the only way you are going to get anything resembling a "personal narrative" is if we ever got some sort of cost/benefit matrix of real consequences when choosing a faction, and similarly real consequences via the future pilot skills tree that PGI claims to be working on. Those mechanisms if done properly could give the feeling of "actions have consequences for good or ill" that a "personal narrative" otherwise might provide. Beyond that, I just don't see PGI doing much more (and I will count us blessed if we get something even close to what I am hoping for with the new skills tree).

[KingCobra]

After 4 years PGI still has not learned from the older PC MechWarrior games and what made them popular exciting and fun to play 24/7 7 days a week and there is no point in me telling them anything more it only falls on deaf ears.

So CW/FW will stay dead and there is nothing the old guard can contribute to MWO anymore.

[Xiomburg]

[Greyhart]

Bud Crue, on 21 July 2016 - 06:08 AM, said:

I think with the mode as it exists, the only way you are going to get anything resembling a "personal narrative" is if we ever got some sort of cost/benefit matrix of real consequences when choosing a faction, and similarly real consequences via the future pilot skills tree that PGI claims to be working on. Those mechanisms if done properly could give the feeling of "actions have consequences for good or ill" that a "personal narrative" otherwise might provide. Beyond that, I just don't see PGI doing much more (and I will count us blessed if we get something even close to what I am hoping for with the new skills tree).

Exactly.

this wasn't a detailed proposal because to make it work would need a reworking of lots of aspects. However I was interested in whether people would agree to a limited pool in return for something better

[Tarl Cabot]

Know what keeps coming back to me? The townhall meeting where Russ said he was going to start outlining and work on CW/FP 3rd version, without any real feedback from the player base, resulting in the current setup.

CW was going to start off as a seasonal game but many did not like that idea so that was taken off the table at the time. Of course none of us knew exactly how CW was going to be setup, but many were basing their expectations on previous experiences, be it Leagues or MPBT or other games.

Many speak of depth but that can mean different things to different people. FP is a minimum variable product, or is it? Orbital Cannons on sparsely populated border or periphery worlds? /winks Shortage of maps? Some of the QP maps would do well in FP, and some of the FP maps would do well in asymmetric QP, especially if Defend/Attack, aka Assault mode, but with a designated defender and attacker.

You suggestion about limiting FP mechs after being destroyed would play to the R&R aspect. One way to work it though would be that after a week's play and being destroyed/repaired/etc, said mech variant would be out of commission for a week, forcing the player to change their drop decks.

It COULD be a different touch on things but several of the underlining issues would need to be reviewed and resolved though, both technology difference and other aspects, as it would create a bottleneck with current game play.

The other side of the coin though, with current setup, is the side winning by a huge margin wiping out the incoming mechs instead of taking out the gens and Omega. Currently tis nice to take out a few of the winning team's mechs and such instead of ending the game quickly but to have the additional issue of not being about to use said mech after pass the weekend in FP would generate animosity between people.

It would also force those who really want to play, to purchase more of a specific mech. In PGI eyes that could be a win, mechbays and new mechs that are only available with cash/MC... but leave those out who are not or not willing to fork over the cash for mechs, and lack the C-bills to purchase those available for Cbills.

One last thing, the mechs that would not be limited would be Trial Mechs, those could be considered unit stockpiled mechs.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 21 July 2016 - 03:56 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Why do the FP "fix" suggestions get sillier and sillier each week?

I dead set do not understand how a mech limitation logic could possibly work. You spend all the time grinding, outfitting mechs - only to be told you can't use them?

*shakes head*

[Tarl Cabot]

Tis not like 99.99% suggestions will ever take hold, as most is just wishful thinking.

My suggestion would be to make worlds into Tiers, where Tier 4 = 13 sectors (current setting), Tier 3 = 27 sectors, Tier 2= 43 sectors, Tier 1= 61 sectors, to make each planet different from the next one.

[Kael Posavatz]

Let's see, for balanced mechs, weapons, maps, a matchmaker and sufficient population to make it viable, LT that was viable without crushing the opposing side (personally I like the idea of TWO scouting campaigns so that BOTH sides could get LT), logistics and...frankly, all the stuff we thought we'd be getting two years ago, I'd be willing to give up quite a bit.

Frankly, I'm not sure how the OP's suggestion would help.

There are...okay, there are a lot of issues. Let's look at one.

Player population. Player population, or a lack of, is the reason FW doesn't have a matchmaker. There are literally not enough people playing FW to even bother attempting to sort them by...whatever, ability, play-styles, master mechs vs trial mechs, whatever.

This suggestion, once you run out of mechs, you are out of FW until you repair all those mechs, whether there is a cooldown period, or you have to pay c-bills.

Placing a restriction on a minimally viable playerbase is not a solution to FW problems.

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 21 July 2016 - 04:31 PM.

[Bud Crue]

R31Nismoid, on 21 July 2016 - 04:00 PM, said:

Why do the FP "fix" suggestions get sillier and sillier each week?

I'd settle for a roll back to P2 for a silly "fix".

[justcallme A S H]

Right now it would be the simplest (read:cheapest) solution.

[Jack Booted Thug]

Would prefer not to give up anything.

Would like more maps, with multiple objectives, that offer a variety of strategic options for engagement/objective play.

Where all weight classes are viable depending on your strategy.

How about destroying a giant dam, or a transport train that is moving, dropships before they take off, or whatever creative fun thing you can think of.

FW in its current iteration gets boring pretty fast.