869 replies to this topic

[Kyrie]

I will be at work when this event begins, so I apologize in advance for being unable to attend. I have one question:

Could PGI discuss why a more detailed implementation of CW, now FP, was not considered, something akin to what is in my signature with its links to archived topics on this area discussed back at the very beginning of this game? What this means is basically:

-Implementing Houses as real constructs
-Implementing Loyalist Units as House military units
-Implementing a strategic war simulator
-Implementing supply constraints
-Implementing both Unit mechs and personal mechs with actual locations and corresponding opportunity costs (give us a reason to have more mechs! Use personally or donate to the Unit...)
-Create a military RPG progression system with ranks that have an impact on your ability to influence the War

[Lostdragon]

Bud Crue, on 25 July 2016 - 05:51 AM, said:

The context was during a discussion of the possibility of getting more combat interaction and effect from critical hits, particularly on engine crits. This segued into a discussion of how complex and "hard core" MWO is compared to other games and how it probably doesn't do the game a service if they made it even more complex. This then lead to Russ going off about how we are lucky to have the game and we should thank him for making it in the first place because Microsoft would have made another Mech Assault if anything. This then lead to the actual statement at issue that: the player base needs to forget the notion that they no better than PGI on how to make the game (that is not a quote but I think it is close).

The actual conversation took place during the April 29th Town Hall. In the video archive it is in part 2 at about the 8:30 mark (I think...I already responded to the original post asking about this but since it is mentioned again I thought I would give more of the context, etc.).

Thanks for providing the source.

[xX PUG Xx]

OK, so this thread is getting pretty long and there are plenty of voices here that will carry more weight than mine. However, since I do spend 95% of my game time in MWO playing FP and have done since it's inception as Community Warfare I feel as though I should put something here for consideration.


Short term changes: to provide a boost to populations.


1. Increase the financial incentive to play the mode -

• Increase in-game rewards for "actions" such as staying close to damaged teammates and staying with your Lance, shooting down UAV's, spotting enemy 'Mechs, etc.
  
• Provide a bonus payment for any surviving 'Mechs a player has at the end of a successful match: this could be linked to tonnage and match score. (Although I believe the method match score is calculated should be altered to a system that does not divide when you lose a 'Mech. Perhaps one that simply builds from zero and has a penalty attached to the loss of a 'Mech rather than a division of the score?).
  
• (As a stretch goal) Provide bonuses for using certain 'Mech chassis on certain planets, +5% payout for actions using an Atlas when defending an important Steiner planet, +5% payout for actions using a Clan Medium 'Mech when attacking any IS planet, etc. The list of possible bonuses is as long as both my arms and can be used to incentivise use of certain 'Mech chassis/class or even specific 'Mechs. This would have to be linked to completing "Project Planet" and attaching Lore to each of the planets or perhaps just specific "important" worlds such as 'Mech production planets.

2. Run monthly events based on invading/defending regional capitals (remember the fervour when Luthien came under attack, no problems finding games then was there?)

• Choose a regional capital and for the course of the event all matches are fought here.
  
• Have a leaderboard for Merc/Loyalist Units, Solo players and of course Lonewolves - provide rewards for the top individual performers and perhaps a unit wide reward (MC, CBills or a Unit specific cockpit item/decal?).
  
• The top performing Unit on the winning side has their TAG applied to the planet and they have a permanent mention in the planet's information panel. This is purely for bragging rights and should not provide an MC payment in the normal fashion as the TAG could not be removed in the next ceasefire window.

3. Incorporate the larger QP maps into FP as "meeting engagements" or "Reinforcements" mode-

• This can be used to signify ground bound defenders approaching the fallen defensive base and provide a change from the the somewhat "same old, same old" combat of the current FP maps.
  
• This could be fought as a one wave engagement to stay "in character" with the ground bound defenders idea or with the addition of dynamic drop zones could be setup with the current drop deck system.

4. Limit access to FP for new players.

I realise this is contradictory to increasing the playerbase of FP but I sincerely believe that allowing a brand new player into a mode that allows 3 year veterans to fight against/alongside day 1 FNG's is a recipe for disaster. Not only does the new player have a horrible experience being slaughtered by the opposing veterans but the majority of veterans find no challenge or enjoyment in dealing out the slaughter or having to drag the new player kicking and screaming into the fight.

• FP should only become available after a set number of QP matches. 50 matches (25 "Cadet" matches plus 25 FNG matches to acclimatise them to the basics of PvP 'Mech combat) seems to be reasonable, although I would recommend a FP tutorial section in the Academy that must be completed before FP can be entered. Simply teaching new players where to shoot O-Gens, the damage difference between open and close turrets, where to shoot gate generators and the effect it has can have a huge benefit to both the new players and veterans gaming experience.
  
• All Trial 'Mechs need to be designed, built and vetted to be effective in FP; how many veteran FP players would bring an LRM Trebuchet over a Hunchback 4P or an Enforcer 4R? Once the multi-dropdeck system has been implemented it may be a good idea to have a "Trial" dropdeck setup for each Tech and planetary type (see Intermediate suggestion 2 below.) that automatically shows in slot 1 but can be switched off by players once they have dropdecks built/saved.

Intermediate changes


1. Remove Long Tom in favour of something less overpowering, automated but still substantial bonus -

• "Air Superiority" - deny air strikes, artillery strikes, UAVs - Automated.
  
• "Advanced Air Superiority" - as above but also provides the ability of a Drop Commander to select two or three grids to be placed under constant UAV surveillance . Requires DC control.
  
• "Massed artillery strike" - Drop commander chooses one grid reference to be saturated by an advanced artillery strike. Three strikes are available as long as the Scout mission benefit has been unlocked but have a three-four minute cooldown to prevent spam. Requires DC control.

2. Group all map types (FP and QP) to suit the environment of the planet that the combat is happening on -

• Cold planet type: Boreal Vault, Alpine Peaks, Polar Highlands, Frozen City.
  
• Temperate planet type: Hellebore Springs, Emerald Taiga, Forest Colony, Crimson Straight, River City, Canyon Network, Mining Collective.
  
• Hot planet type: Sulfurous Rift, Vitric Forge, Caustic Valley, Terra Therma, Tourmaline Desert, Viridian Bog.
  
• Industrial / Moon / failed terraforming planet type: Grim Portico, Grim Plexus, HPG Manifold, Mining Collective, Frozen City.

The above is a rough grouping but essentially gives some narrative and "feel" to the world that players are fighting on and provide some environmental immersion to the combat. I understand this will give rise to "specialised" drop decks but they are already here for those of us with enough 'Mechs / modules to do so but there is a realism in this type of planning that is currently tenuous at best.


This would also give direction to the production of maps: we don't have enough cold (snow) type maps to fully populate planet X? OK PGI needs to focus on a couple of those but in the meantime we can use a couple of temperate maps to bridge the gap etc.


3. (This has already been suggested above). Merge QP and FP but in a manner that does not detract from the fast and furious feel of QP.

• Keep the current QP modes but attach meaning to them using the current Scout mission percentage bar. Perhaps attach bonuses to achieving certain percentages, either in the QP missions themselves in the form of bonus payments or as bonuses that affect the main modes but not that affect combat.

There are other things which could be implemented/changed but I feel this post has dragged on long enough, hopefully I have not bored you all too much

[cazidin]

Do we know who will be part of the Gray Council (see my earlier thread) yet? It'd be a really rude thing to wait until the last minute to tell us who are "representatives" are, who, I might add, I could not and did not vote for.

[MovinTarget]

Agree, reps should be known so that we can start pumping them w/ bribes and/or extorting them...




I kid! I kid!

[cazidin]

MovinTarget, on 25 July 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

Agree, reps should be known so that we can start pumping them w/ bribes and/or extorting them...




I kid! I kid!

Cookies aren't bribes.

[Sky Hawk]

I. Short term changes (sommer 2016)

1. Full separation of Group and Solo players in FP.

Group = any form of "pre" team-play. (LFG included too.)
Solo = PUGs, players not in team, etc.. (No matter with or without an Unit Tag.)

2. Really valuable XP, LP, CB's earnings for playing Scouting Game Mode
- least equal earning levels with a Solo Quick Play match (to compensate the waiting time)
- usefull MP, XP, LP, and CB's for the gathering of Infos in Scout Mode
- usefull MP, XP, LP, and CB's for every Killed Scouts in Interception Mode (You call it falsely Protect Intel.)

3. Starting some longer term low-level FP events (very easy conditions + extra long durations).
- timeframe about 2-3-4 weeks long
- needed games about: 20 Invasion + 40 Scouting
- targets like: XP, MP, few Kills, few or non KMDD, DMG. Assists, etc.
- but no "win" conditions requirement
- least some mid-level prices, like a few 100 MC or Mech Bays (not just the cheap stuff)


II. Mid term changes (fall 2016)

1. Creation of two new MWO Faction:
- "IS Defender Faction" = members can fight on EVERY Clan vs. IS battlefield
- "Invader Clan Faction" = members can fight on EVERY Clan vs. IS battlefield

2. Creation the possibility of Faction Combat-Alliances
- example: Steiner and Davion players can fight together against Jade Falcon in Steiner space. (Joint attacks in Solo an Group play too!)

3. FP Group play teamsize limitation = only groups of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 players.

4. Creation of new type of FP maps, like Urban- and Long Range (similar of Polar Highlands) maps.


III. Long term changes (late fall 2016 / early winter 2016-17)

1. FP Group play form into Lance Combat = only groups of 4, 8 and 12 players.

2. Cutting bigger Units into several smaller sub-units within FP (call them Combat Unit).
- Earlier chat, member-management, unit coffin CB/MC connection staying alive.
- Unit leaders can creat a Combat Unit and appoint players into it.
- Combat Unit max size: 3 Company = 9 Lances = 36 player
- Combat Unit min size: 1 Lances = 4 players
- After creation, the member changes (kick-our or new appointsments) are limited to 10% of the membership / week.
- FP Combat Units can have a 2-3 extra-letter in their Unit Tag (like -MS- 019)
- Only Combat Units can own planets (have their Tag on it)

3. Creation of an "Planer Invasion Campaign" Game Mode for Solo Player

Spoiler

It's a 24/7 Solo Game Mode (separate from QP) for both new players to peek into FP and for all casual players, who like to play on FP maps, but don't really want participate in the hard FP gameplay itself. It is an FP gameplay simulation on a single planet, with ALL existing FP maps, in near MW4-Merc style.

The players can see ALL existing Invasion (Att/Def) and Scouting (Sco/Int) maps (and actual population) on a single screen and can choose between maps and game modes freely.

Example (imagine the whole thing in graphic form):
Moon Attack
- Scouting/Interception on HPG Mainfold
- Invasion/Defense on Vitric Forge

Artic Warzone
- Scouting/Interception on Polar Highlands
- Invasion/Defense on Boreal Vault

Winter War
- Scouting/Interception on Frozen City
- Invasion/Defense on [Polar Infinity] (New long range FP map)

Urban Warfare
- Scouting/Interception on River City
- Invasion/Defense on [Piranha City] (New urban FP map)

Forrest War
- Scouting/Interception on Forrest Colony
- Invasion/Defense on Emmerald Taiga

Desert War
- Scouting/Interception on Caustic Valley
- Invasion/Defense on Sulfurous Rift

Wastelands
- Scouting/Interception on Grim Plexus
- Invasion/Defense on Grim Portico

There is 4 sub-campaigns:
1. Clan Invasion Campaign = Play Scouting / Invasion on all maps
2. IS Defender Campaign = Play Interception / Defense on all maps
3. IS Attack Campaign = Play Scouting / Invasion on all maps
4. Clan Defender Campaign = Play Interception / Defense on all maps

After completion every sub-campaign, the player can obtain extra 1.000.000 CB's from a Forum page, and another extra 3.000.000 CB's for the whole campaign. (If could be an "Elite" mode with "win on every maps" condition for some MC too.) After redeem the bonus the whole campaign start again.

[Xiomburg]

I would want Long Tom removed from FP for most of the planets...important planets and capitals should maintain them as is.

[Kurbeks]

feeWAIVER, on 25 July 2016 - 12:18 AM, said:

One Suggestion:

Stop Running Quick play Events, and start running weekly FP Events.

Definately +1 to this. Leave only mech event on their release.

[Kurbeks]

Sky Hawk, on 25 July 2016 - 07:42 AM, said:

I. Short term changes (sommer 2016)

1. Full separation of Group and Solo players in FP.

Group = any form of "pre" team-play. (LFG included too.)
Solo = PUGs, players not in team, etc.. (No matter with or without an Unit Tag.)

2. Really valuable XP, LP, CB's earnings for playing Scouting Game Mode
- least equal earning levels with a Solo Quick Play match (to compensate the waiting time)
- usefull MP, XP, LP, and CB's for the gathering of Infos in Scout Mode
- usefull MP, XP, LP, and CB's for every Killed Scouts in Interception Mode (You call it falsely Protect Intel.)

3. Starting some longer term low-level FP events (very easy conditions + extra long durations).
- timeframe about 2-3-4 weeks long
- needed games about: 20 Invasion + 40 Scouting
- targets like: XP, MP, few Kills, few or non KMDD, DMG. Assists, etc.
- but no "win" conditions requirement
- least some mid-level prices, like a few 100 MC or Mech Bays (not just the cheap stuff)


II. Mid term changes (fall 2016)

1. Creation of two new MWO Faction:
- "IS Defender Faction" = members can fight on EVERY Clan vs. IS battlefield
- "Invader Clan Faction" = members can fight on EVERY Clan vs. IS battlefield

2. Creation the possibility of Faction Combat-Alliances
- example: Steiner and Davion players can fight together against Jade Falcon in Steiner space. (Joint attacks in Solo an Group play too!)

3. FP Group play teamsize limitation = only groups of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 players.

4. Creation of new type of FP maps, like Urban- and Long Range (similar of Polar Highlands) maps.


III. Long term changes (late fall 2016 / early winter 2016-17)

1. FP Group play form into Lance Combat = only groups of 4, 8 and 12 players.

2. Cutting bigger Units into several smaller sub-units within FP (call them Combat Unit).
- Earlier chat, member-management, unit coffin CB/MC connection staying alive.
- Unit leaders can creat a Combat Unit and appoint players into it.
- Combat Unit max size: 3 Company = 9 Lances = 36 player
- Combat Unit min size: 1 Lances = 4 players
- After creation, the member changes (kick-our or new appointsments) are limited to 10% of the membership / week.
- FP Combat Units can have a 2-3 extra-letter in their Unit Tag (like -MS- 019)
- Only Combat Units can own planets (have their Tag on it)

3. Creation of an "Planer Invasion Campaign" Game Mode for Solo Player

Spoiler

It's a 24/7 Solo Game Mode (separate from QP) for both new players to peek into FP and for all casual players, who like to play on FP maps, but don't really want participate in the hard FP gameplay itself. It is an FP gameplay simulation on a single planet, with ALL existing FP maps, in near MW4-Merc style.

The players can see ALL existing Invasion (Att/Def) and Scouting (Sco/Int) maps (and actual population) on a single screen and can choose between maps and game modes freely.

Example (imagine the whole thing in graphic form):
Moon Attack
- Scouting/Interception on HPG Mainfold
- Invasion/Defense on Vitric Forge

Artic Warzone
- Scouting/Interception on Polar Highlands
- Invasion/Defense on Boreal Vault

Winter War
- Scouting/Interception on Frozen City
- Invasion/Defense on [Polar Infinity] (New long range FP map)

Urban Warfare
- Scouting/Interception on River City
- Invasion/Defense on [Piranha City] (New urban FP map)

Forrest War
- Scouting/Interception on Forrest Colony
- Invasion/Defense on Emmerald Taiga

Desert War
- Scouting/Interception on Caustic Valley
- Invasion/Defense on Sulfurous Rift

Wastelands
- Scouting/Interception on Grim Plexus
- Invasion/Defense on Grim Portico

There is 4 sub-campaigns:
1. Clan Invasion Campaign = Play Scouting / Invasion on all maps
2. IS Defender Campaign = Play Interception / Defense on all maps
3. IS Attack Campaign = Play Scouting / Invasion on all maps
4. Clan Defender Campaign = Play Interception / Defense on all maps

After completion every sub-campaign, the player can obtain extra 1.000.000 CB's from a Forum page, and another extra 3.000.000 CB's for the whole campaign. (If could be an "Elite" mode with "win on every maps" condition for some MC too.) After redeem the bonus the whole campaign start again.

Boreal is alredy semi-long range map

[Nainko]

Dear MWO-Community,

In CW we often faced the problem that too many active players were on the same faction at the same time. I think, my idea of a bonus/malus system could be very interesting especially for merc units and new players. A merc goes to the faction which pays him/her best, that’s the merc’s nature. A faction with has less active soldiers has less expenses, so they could rise the benefit for the people which fight for them. So much for the role-play factor.


At first we have to define an active CW player. Its definition “could” be:
- Played at least 5 CW matches in the last 7 days
- Played at least 10 CW matches in the last 10 days
- Played at least 25 CW matches in the last 30 days

It is not important which of these is be used or a totally different one, as long one is used as filter on all CW players. No matter if they fought for one or several factions in this time. The system is already tracking this information, so it must be easy to read out this data.


We have 10 factions, so it would be optimal if each faction had 10% of the total amount of active CW players. This will of course not the case. At first we need an overview which faction has how many active players. A simple overlay attached in the inner sphere view would be sufficient.


When a faction has 10% active players, all MechWarrior fighting in CW for this faction should get 100% C-Bills and 100% Loyalty Points. (Base value, Mechboni Equiptment boni come on top of that)

Each faction that differs from these 10% would get a bonus or malus of 5% on the C-Bills and Loyalty per 1% difference.

If a faction has only 9% of the active players, all MechWarrior fighting in CW for this faction should get 105% C-Bills and 105% Loyalty Points.

And a faction which has 13% of the active players would get a malus of 15% on C-bills and Loyalty Points.

The bonus/malus could reach up to 50%, if a faction manage to have only 0,49% or less of the active players or one faction would have 20% or more of the active players.

I think that every merc unit would like to get better payed and make easier the Loyalty Achievements. The same applies to new MechWarrior. They would rather join a faction in which they could gain faster more profit.

I don’t see a reason why this should not be done for the upcoming solo-queue and unit-queue. If you are in a unit. And I think it should be applied to the MC system for planets as well. (!)

To make it again clear, the system should NOT take all players into account, only the players which are qualified to be active players. The calculation of the amount of active CW players per faction can be done with every cease fire.

This would be an easy to use and easy to understand problem which benefits players in small faction for their duties more than the one in huge factions. But it will make the smallest faction always be the most attractive faction for merc units or new/solo players to join.

And it would regulate a little when many active players change the faction in a short period of time. If a heavy weight is jumping between the scale pans, it must cause a bigger impact than a feather weight.


I hope this could at least be an inspiration to the right people.
Already suggested here

[Wintersdark]

Cato Zilks, on 24 July 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

No, I don't in any way want to be fed into a mega IS faction. I don't want fewer lanes. Sharing lanes is a far better solution than condensing them. We need access to more players and places to drop, not fewer places for all of us.

The idea is, you retain a particular faction tag, but all of the IS is a single faction, while all of the clans are a single faction. You'd still be "Marik" flagged, but from a game mechanics standpoint simply be "IS".

What this means is that ALL IS attack lanes would be open to you to fight in. Shared attack lanes.

Not just that IS is one big glob, and Clans are a second big glob, with only 1-2 attack lanes each.



But the hard truth is that in the current game, 9 factions is too many. It's simply unsustainable. Sure, more plays would fix that - MANY MANY more players, but even fixing FP gameplay isn't certain to do that. So many factions have too few players to be able to really play at all. I see this a lot, even as a Clam faction - it's not uncommon for me to peek into FP, and see there's insufficient players queued to make matches at all. I'm not willing to wait around for more people to show up (I'm always time constrained), so off I go to hit Quick Play... and then zero Ghost Bear matches kick off.

This low pop situation directly leads to fewer people playing, which makes it harder to get matches, so even fewer people play.

I respect that people love the idea of all the factions, but it doesn't work with our population, and the population required for it to work is way beyond what we can expect MWO to be able to provide any time soon.

The only way I can think that we could keep 9 factions and have it work would be adding a third game type to Faction Play; that being all the quick play matches, and thus faction-restricting QuickPlay to ISvIS, ISvClan, ClanvClan. But that's a much bigger change, and while it was the original design I don't see it happening.

xX PUG Xx, on 25 July 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

3. (This has already been suggested above). Merge QP and FP but in a manner that does not detract from the fast and furious feel of QP.

• Keep the current QP modes but attach meaning to them using the current Scout mission percentage bar. Perhaps attach bonuses to achieving certain percentages, either in the QP missions themselves in the form of bonus payments or as bonuses that affect the main modes but not that affect combat.

There are other things which could be implemented/changed but I feel this post has dragged on long enough, hopefully I have not bored you all too much

This, really. I think if they want Faction Play to work, they really have to cram Quickplay into it. But in a way that makes Quickplay still function as it does now - you can just click launch, and the MM puts you at whatever world a battle is needed at, and you have a quickplay match exactly as you would now except faction-restricted. Same Quickplay game modes, etc; but the results of that battle matter on the FP map.

[metallio]

Cato Zilks, on 23 July 2016 - 07:25 PM, said:

Bringing QP players in needs to be a priority, but what QP only players deserve a seat at that digital table?

All of them. If you want their business. Period. This isn't 'deserves' at this stage, this is 'making the model work at all'. So all of them.

Quote

They have members active on FW and many more who are who focus on QP. Can they not address pug problems?

No. They're not the ones who aren't showing up. They can pretend they're more important because they're 'in charge' or 'communicating with the masses' etc but they're not the ones who aren't showing up, and those are the people we need feedback from. Even doing this as a forum post cuts out significant numbers of people. Putting a button on the front of the UI screaming in big bold letters "please tell us why you don't play FW!! We promise it will be easy!" might actually get some of the people whose feedback is needed to respond. Short bullet survey with a text box if they feel like commenting further.

They won't have great perspective, but you can take their feedback and read into it what you need to do. Otherwise it's just the same people showing up saying the same things. Any way to avoid that and gather information is useful.

[Johnny Z]

I'm getting a laugh imagining Bombadil volunteering to read this entire topic and gather all the suggestions thinking it was going to be 5 or 6 pages long.

[Wintersdark]

Johnny Z, on 25 July 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

I'm getting a laugh imagining Bombadil volunteering to read this entire topic and gather all the suggestions thinking it was going to be 5 or 6 pages long.

Say what you will about him, he's been around a while, he knew what he was getting in to.

I imagine him starting this topic with a bottle in hand and sweat on his brow. He knew damn well what was going to happen.

[Johnny Z]

Wintersdark, on 25 July 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

Say what you will about him, he's been around a while, he knew what he was getting in to.

I imagine him starting this topic with a bottle in hand and sweat on his brow. He knew damn well what was going to happen.

[Ironically Ironclad Irony]

And bombadil has been chiming in here-n-there so we haven't driven him off a cliff...




















...yet.

[Contrex]

At the moment there are several problems with faction play. Many of the bigger units stopped playing faction games for several reasons. In this post i would like to sum up some of the major problems many people have

A ) We have too many factions. The Lore tells us which factions we have and Mechwarrior cant be played without these factions. True.... But we can get one step further.
If the lore is the problem, we have a simple solution:

Every faction can not only vote an enemy he wants to attack, every faction should also be able to vote a faction to work with. This means : If Steiner votes Davion, Steiner pilots should be able to attack for Davion. The planet which is attacked can only be tagged by the faction which is directly attacking the planet. So steiner tags cant be found on a planet, if the planet is conquered through the davion attack phase.
If we have partners to attack with, we cut the amount of factions by 50%.

Another solution would be: Every IS should be able to attack with any faction, if a clan faction is attacked. The tag goes as well to the faction which is able to attack the planet.
The same way for the Clans on the other side

B ) Scouting System - and rewards: The Scoutinsystem was a nice idea. But for the people who just love CW is it realy annyoing. If you play a 12vs12 with 2 even teams you want to compare with them. If the enemy already knows where you are going it is realy annoying, but if they even have a Longtom, you dont need to fight at all. So i think there should NO influence at all for the factiongames by scoutgames. There must be any other reward for scoutmatches, then longtom or satelitesweep. I think the best solution would solve another problem as well: Only one planet in one attackphase. If a planet is at 100% none is attacking or defending anymore. So let people scout planets without an attackphase and if they are successfull, the faction gets a second planet in the next phase to attack. So you would be able to attack more planets AND you would not have any influence into the CW games.

C) Too many new players at FP: I think people should have been played at least 100 quickgames before they are able to play CW.

D) Unitqueue and Soloqueue: I hate playing against random groups. Its just boring, Waste of time. Its even more boring, if the playes in there are not in a team. Its like fighting trees in WOW to raise ur lumberjackskills. Its grinding. So there are 2 opportunities: Play CW as it is and lose many of the teams who want to fight other teams OR split the queue for groups of at least 8 people playing and the rest. You can fill with 4 randoms if there are only 8 players in the team. Factiongame is somekind of teamgame. If you dont have a team dont play a teamgame. Its no fun at all for randomgroups just to get farmed by 12man as well. There must be a solution. The way it is at the moment is one of the mainreasons FP is going down.

E) Big Mercunits: One month ago every single top10 mercunit (but NS) joined the falcons. What happened? MAAAANY ghostdrops. There had been so mutch attackers and not enough defenders. So they started scouting for the longtom as well (because they had been bored) and then there had been even less defender. It was just badluck, all the big units had been joining JF at the same time. So reduce the chance to get all the big units together in one big pool, you have to do treat them as mercs. So you have 2 ways to do this:

1) Factions offer contracts, if a faction is full of mercs they should not offer anymore contracts. Actualy i think only the less 5 played factions should offer contracts. The top 5 should NOT. So mercs will be treated as what they are, soldiers who fight for everyone, who gives them a job.

2) Big merc units should not be able to get short contracts. The bigger a unit is, the less flexible it has to be. To ship all the mechs from one faction to another faction needs plenty of time. Actualy they should be able to get short contracts as well, but have a long time to move from one faction to antoher faction withoug been able to fight. But this way, we would hurt ourself. So the bigger a merc unit is: the longer it has to stay at one faction.
The reason is: its unlikely to happen, that too many mercunits join the same faction at one time. Less factionswitch = less risk for too many mercs at one faction.
I know many people here in the forum will start crying at the last point, just because they are a part of a big unit.

[Hunka Junk]

feeWAIVER, on 25 July 2016 - 12:18 AM, said:

One Suggestion:

Stop Running Quick play Events, and start running weekly FP Events.

Whoa now. The fixing of FP should not be to the detriment of QP.

Since the mech release event already features 2 aspects (personal challenge for everyone and leaderboard for mech purchasers), why can't said events also feature a FP challenge/event?

xX PUG Xx, on 25 July 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

1. Increase the financial incentive to play the mode

4. Limit access to FP for new players.

3. (This has already been suggested above). Merge QP and FP but in a manner that does not detract from the fast and furious feel of QP.

Working off the above ideas, what about if getting QP kills/dmg/match score (you decide which is best) earned you and your faction some minor amount of points that went toward that faction's total daily/weekly/monthly/seasonal "faction score"? The amount a faction can earn from "representing" in QP could be capped to keep it from becoming overly important/impinging upon FP itself.

This would encourage people to join a faction before starting FP. this playerbase doesnt seem intimidated by masochistic grinds, so you could require ,say, 1000 kills representing a house in QP before you are invited/allowed to participate in FP. When the call-to-arms comes up, players too low who click on it get a message saying they are not yet ready answer such a call. You might attract people simply by making FP the forbidden fruit.

Taken a step further, you could require new accounts to choose a faction right when they sign up. This, of course, means letting people switch factions without punishment/penalties. Done this way, the faction seed gets planted right at the beginning.

Maybe on sign up you are asked to choose where you were born/what faction you were born into?

Isn't this also a step towards making this whole thing more lore-y? After all, in lore/TTBT, no one is born in some weird vacuum outside the whole universe, right?

Edited by Hunka Junk, 25 July 2016 - 09:20 AM.

[Kael Posavatz]

Image

-PGI has an image problem, at least among Clan Loyalists, that PGI staff (especially...those in leadership positions) do not like the Clans, ranging from apathetic indifference to actively making sure the Clans cannot succeed

-Some of this comes from past comments that MWO was supposed to be set in 4th succession war/war of 3039 and Clan War was forced on PGI by IGP...that PGI then proceeded to blame for all other troubles

-Some of this comes from comments certain senior employees of PGI supposedly made (I, for myself, have not seen them), that they are a bunch of IS fans. Following on this, the rumor that Clan fans are not hired. And the perception that when asked to dispel this Russ has blown people off.

-For myself when I have run into PGI staff playing FW with one exception they have been playing IS side. Since I rarely play Clan v Clan, have never played IS v IS this may not mean much but... :shrug:

-In the same vein, there is a perception that PGI 'likes' Mercs and 'hates' loyalists. Again, people pointing to originally a merc-centric game that IGP forced PGI to move away from. Again, lots of 'he said' comments. But also the decision with Phase III to give mercs a new reward structure while ignoring long-time Loyalist players, many of whom had completed their reward tier (nothing left to play for...)

Unit Tools
-The Phase III patch was pretty good for this

-Still need a tool to show when last a player logged in. We should not need to bug Russ for this info.

Loyalists v Mercs
-Reward tiers should both matter and reflect the thinking behind being a loyalist or a merc

-the GXP reward loyalists get, especially at high tiers, are a bad reward. By the time a player gets to level 19 or 20 GXP does not matter unless they are buying and mastering mechs with it wholesale

-Loyalist cockpit items are a bad reward. They are arbitrary, they have no tie-in to the various factions, and they are the same for all factions. When instituted there was...very little faction-specific content. That is no longer the case.

-C-bills. Adding up the c-bill rewards and Mercs get paid about 2/3 of what a loyalist does. This should be reversed.

-Make loyalist and merc matter. Interface with the store--not necessarily the MC store, but at least the c-bill store--so that a loyalist can get faction-related mechs at reduced prices, or upgrade them at reduced prices, or maybe sell them at a better price. Likewise mechs associated with a historically opposed faction should cost more. (Example, Jenner within the DC, and Cauldron Born within SJ). I don' mean a, "you're in Davion, this is our price chart", but maybe tier 5 unlocks a sale on the Victor, tier 8 reduced price uprades (Endo/Ferro/Heatsinks), tier 10 better sell-back price, etc.

Scouting and Long Tom
-I know it's another bucket, but PGI should strongly consider two scouting missions running side-by-side so both factions have the chance to acquire scouting data and deny the same to the other

-If population is such that this cannot be supported, then scouting should either be removed entirely, or the Long Tom replaced with something that does not directly interface with the match. That is, some kind of informational support rather than additional damage or something that actively hinders one team or the other (possibly something that aura-shade mechs the way spectator lets you put blue/red halos around mechs to show teams. This could replace the Sat Sweep that could then be moved to #3. Possibilities are color-coding to primary weapon type such as SRMs or Lasers, or something that indicates damage status).

Maps
-There needs to be a look at how the maps are influencing mech balance

-Right now IS strengths are close-range brawl, and the Clans long-range/mobile warfare

-Inside the gates most maps have a point of contact of 400m or less and time-to-close of under 3 seconds. These play into the shorter-range/brawling nature of IS mech/weapon balance. It is almost impossible not to end up in a brawl on Vitric Forge, and very difficult not to on Emerald Taiga.

-Outside the gates the longer sight-lines and generally more open or at least even terrain favors the Clans.

-One possible option is to 'double up' the maps, by switching the side the gate-generator is on, and removing the SDS cannon and placing it near the previous 'attacker' drop zone, most of the maps could be reused while increasing the number of maps in play and providing more varied terrain

-If not, those additional level designers PGI hired should start taking a serious look at improving 'map balance' for both factions.

Player base rationalization
-I am...not certain why PGI thought starting with 10 factions, was a good idea

-As a result, however, the player base is so low that matches are essentially were MWO was in very early beta in regards to the quality of matches.

-One options would be 'seasons', for example, three months of the IS blowing each other up while the Clans squabble with each other out of sight and mind, followed by three months of the Clans and IS fighting each other in two big 'super factions'.

-any way you go, the population needs to be increased, either in absolute numbers or by concentrating it into fewer factions, that some type of system that sorts individual players and groups of players into opposing team of roughly equal skill

Mech/Weapon Balance
-PGI is attempting to leverage the same core assets (mechs and weapons) into 2 games that function differently. In one the mixed-tech nature of teams cover the weaknesses (and provide the strengths) of both sets of tech. Maps in QP also generally provide more options of how to fight than FW maps.

-Faction Warfare lacks these benefits

-There needs to be decision by PGI about which game mode takes precedence for purposes of balance. I have seen game balance swing from 'pretty good' to 'quite bad' and back as PGI first balanced for one game mode, and then for the other.

-Or maybe they weren't? But for me this is what it felt like. My perception is that game-play in one mode improved as the other worsened.

PSR
-The issue with PSR as done in QP is that it is still very heavily weighted towards wins and losses. If you play enough games and win more than you lose you will eventually reach tier 1 whether or not you are as good a player. This needs to be avoided in FW