869 replies to this topic

[JaxRiot]

Bombadil, on 25 July 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

I think maybe you're misunderstanding the purpose of this Roundtable, and the format in which it will be held. This is not a podcast, and this is not even a Town Hall, where we usually relay community-submitted questions to Russ ourselves. This is going to be a panel of players, probably landing somewhere between 6 and 12 individuals, who will be speaking directly to Russ and the devs, asking questions, offering solutions, and having conversations about improving FP. My only role will be to moderate if necessary, and to keep things moving forward and on-topic. I'm gathering notes as a way to have those that cannot attend have a voice, if appropriate. For example, if someone says "How does the community feel about the Long Tom?", well I have a pretty clear picture of that, at least from the perspective of those who have posted to this thread. But again, this first Roundtable will be primarily focused on large-scale issues, like player population, buckets and queue times, solo and group play, factions, and the overall format of Faction Play (ie. 24/7 vs. scheduled times or other options). If successful, this Roundtable will lead to more meetings, which can then focus on additional topics, such as game modes, rewards and incentives, lobbies and chat, maps, the role of mercenaries, barriers to entry (ie. new players), PvE, lore, and on and on. But again, this isn't about me. If the players involved in this discussion want to make something a higher priority than I have suggested here, excellent!

Good Job..

I like the cut of your Jib

Im so proud of you right now

Edit- ALL of my suggestions get the highest priority, Mkay?

Edited by JaxRiot, 25 July 2016 - 12:02 PM.

[Cy Mitchell]

JaxRiot, on 25 July 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

No we wont.

The biggest draw of being a Merc is the ability to switch sides from Clans to IS or IS to Clans practically at will. Which by the way, is completely against Lore

Even if we give Loyalists the ability to unlock a mech or two to use in their decks from the opposing side, it still pales in comparison to the ability to jump sides completely, and wont stop the huge migrations of Mercs from one side to the other every time a new Mech Pack comes out.

That Faction Hopping freedom creates a population Teeter Totter effect. It greatly hurts population
stability.

Edit- Just to say that every problem that FW has gets magnified every time the Mercs migrate. Population Imbalances, Longer Wait Times, More Ghost Drops, Whacked out Ques ect, ect.

Just throwing Loyalists a few crumbs so the Merc Units can keep throwing the population and ques out of whack doesnt fix any thing and kills Lore too.

Edit- Not like there is much lore any way though

I do not hate Mercenary units but you have pointed out one of the major problems with FP. Units have too much freedom to move around and there are no restrictions on how many can join one faction. Whether the Mercs want to admit it or not this does break FP. They also make up the bulk of the 12 man pre-mades who are beating those poor little seals and making them extinct in FP. There was an excellent thread already that offered ideas for factions contracting with Merc units including cost determined by Merc Unit Tier, restrictions on the number of Merc units employed and length of contract


Long Tom- If it is going to stay in the game then make it a destructible asset placed on the map. If you do not want to get pounded by it then there is an additional game objective. Find it and destroy it.

[S C A R]

Bombadil, on 25 July 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

I think maybe you're misunderstanding the purpose of this Roundtable, and the format in which it will be held. This is not a podcast, and this is not even a Town Hall, where we usually relay community-submitted questions to Russ ourselves. This is going to be a panel of players, probably landing somewhere between 6 and 12 individuals, who will be speaking directly to Russ and the devs, asking questions, offering solutions, and having conversations about improving FP. My only role will be to moderate if necessary, and to keep things moving forward and on-topic. I'm gathering notes as a way to have those that cannot attend have a voice, if appropriate. For example, if someone says "How does the community feel about the Long Tom?", well I have a pretty clear picture of that, at least from the perspective of those who have posted to this thread. But again, this first Roundtable will be primarily focused on large-scale issues, like player population, buckets and queue times, solo and group play, factions, and the overall format of Faction Play (ie. 24/7 vs. scheduled times or other options). If successful, this Roundtable will lead to more meetings, which can then focus on additional topics, such as game modes, rewards and incentives, lobbies and chat, maps, the role of mercenaries, barriers to entry (ie. new players), PvE, lore, and on and on. But again, this isn't about me. If the players involved in this discussion want to make something a higher priority than I have suggested here, excellent!

Thanks for clarifying this. I guess many people got the wrong impression, just like me. There many small things that PGI could do to improve this game only if they listened a bit. I didn't mean to be a hard ask I'd just like PGI to listen for once. It is important that we move forward and not backwards.

[tee5]

K O N D O, on 25 July 2016 - 12:34 AM, said:

This is the exact system I was proposing back on page 5.
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5307306

sorry Kondo I have to interrupt and I think I have a better System. I didn't read the 18 pages, could be it was mentioned allready.


A Unit can have 4000 Players, but what if only 100 of them are playing CW/FP? So Unit Size not equals FP/CW Player Size.

Unit A has 200 Players and Unit B has 200 Players as well. BUT Unit A has very skilled Players. And they have a lot of time and play very frequently CW/FP. Unit B has very low skilled Players, and they don't have much time to play FP/CW. So Unit Size equals not Unit Size.


What you have to do, is a lot of math: You have to compress the math in a quotient or ratio.

Factors are: 1. How often does a player, play CW/FP. Look into his CW/FP gamestats, of the past 4 weeks, crunch that up into a quotient.

2. How good is he playing CW/FP. Look into his CW/FP gamestats, of the past 4 weeks, look at his Kill most damage dealts, his kill/death ratio, his win/lose ratio etc. crunch that up into a quotient.
(EDIT: But what if a good player makes a pause of 4 weeks, to cheat and get a low quotient. Hell, then shall it be all the games he ever played in CW/FP).

What this means is. A very good Player, who spends a lot of time in CW/FP has a quotient of 10(for example).
A very good Player, who seldom plays CW/FP has a quotient of 3 (for example).
A bad Player, who spends a lot of time in CW/FP has a quotient of 1 (for example).
A bad Player, who almost never plays CW/FP has a quotient of 0,25 (for example).


Every Faction is allowed to have so many players till their maximum number of quotient is reached. Let's say every Faction is allowed 2000 quotient.


That means: One factions can have the best players of the world, who spend hundreds of hours each week in CW/FP. But because they are so good they will soon get to the maximum of 2000 quotient. So they will have 200 Players(each player with a quotient of 10). And they are not allowed to have more because Maximum of 2000 qotient is reached. A Maximum reached Quotient means a total Stop nobody new is allowed for this faction, new players must go to a other faction which is not full.

The other faction has not so good players, or the good players don't want to go to this faction. So they will get mediocre players, who play maybe 5 hours a week CW/FP. But they can take more of this mediocre players. So they will have 2500 players. (each player with a average quotient of 0,8).

So 200 players have to play against 2500 players. And this is fair! Because on the one side are all the Pros who play a lot. And on the other side are only the mediocre/bad players who don't play so regular.

When all Factions have reached their Maximum of 2000 Quotient. PGI can increase the number for all factions.

Edited by tee5, 25 July 2016 - 01:50 PM.

[Bombadil]

S C A R, on 25 July 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:

Thanks for clarifying this. I guess many people got the wrong impression, just like me. There many small things that PGI could do to improve this game only if they listened a bit. I didn't mean to be a hard ask I'd just like PGI to listen for once. It is important that we move forward and not backwards.

No worries man, I agree it is time to move forward.

[Jables McBarty]

FWIW:

Jables McBarty, on 30 June 2016 - 07:06 AM, said:

I have an honest, abstract interest in FP. I'd like to think there are many like me who want to play but don't, and this has been a thoughtful thread, so I'll explain the reasons I don't play, things I don't care about, and things I mgiht care about.

A) I don't play FP for the following reasons:

Spoiler

A1. Stale gameplay. Invasion Mode is incredibly rigid, all maps are essentially identical. It's been said before--choke-point brawls, occasional light rush, not much more. It's just not that interesting to me. In QP you can get some really interesting matches that range all over the map. Not so much in FP. Scouting helped with this--I initially really enjoyed running my Pirate's Bane to cap points and escape--but eventually was drawn back to QP.

A2. Low population and long waits. Due primarily #A1, people just don't play FP. Any time I think of queuing up, I see that attack lanes are empty and it would take me 5-30 minutes to get a match. QP never makes me wait much longer than 2 minutes. Why wait so long for what I find to be repetitive gameplay?

A3. Steep learning curve. Obviously to a large extent this is solvable only by a PGI-created tutorial of what exactly FP is and how to win it. One of the few PUG attacks I helped call ended up in a loss because one of our guys didn't know what the generators were and shot at buildings that look like power plants. And that's an honest, understandable mistake--one I made my first couple matches--but the problem only starts there. The learning curve is so steep because of reasons A1 and A2. The Invasion Mode is repetitive, meaning that it requires a degree of perfectionism to really succeed. You can only achieve the required level of skill by playing over and over and over again--something that is very difficult to do due to reason #A2. If you can't get matches, you can't learn. If you can't learn the basic tactics, you'll never find the nuances of gameplay that might make it actually competitive and interesting to you, and you'll have no enduring interest in gameplay.

B ) Things already in FP or proposed for FP that don't matter to me:

Spoiler

B1. Rewards. I don't give a flying f**k about the rewards for playing as Merc/Loyalist. To me, rewards are a nice extra, but by no means an incentive. I may represent a tiny minority of potential FPers, but I consistently see rewards touted as the downfall or solution to low FP numbers. Believe me, the only thing that will get me into FP is a solution to Problem #A1. Honestly, the fact that there was such consistent outcry among loyalists post-Phase 3 really alienated me and I'm guessing others like me. It gave the impression--however accurate or not--that the bulk of the FP crowd is an insular group that feels a sense of entitlement for playing the least-popular game mode.

B2. Planet Flipping. I'm not really concerned with how often planets flip--I DON'T EVEN FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS. I've watched Kanajashi's videos and read the Google Docs guide and it's so convoluted that I refuse to waste the time to learn. All I know is that about half the time that I want to play FP, the map is dead due to a CeaseFire. So I go back to QP and forget about FP for another month.

B3. Rewards for planet ownership (Unit). I'm not in a big unit, so I'll never stand to gain from MC rewards. My impression is that raising a stink over these rewards will affect the big units only, which is the current FP playerbase. If you want to engage my demographic, leave these alone and focus on other aspects. As I state in B2, I barely understand how ownership works, and these rewards which are beyond my reach aren't sufficient incentive to learn.

B4. Rewards for planet ownership (Faction). I get that this concept is supposed to tie into a larger player-run economy, but I don't think such a feature would end up fixing the fundamental problem (A1). All it would do is grant the winning faction a steamroll modifier, causing QQ and disinterest along the lines of the Long Tom. The only thing I might see as beneficent would be certain 'mech bonuses--price discounts for purchasing or outfitting 'mechs produced on planets your faction owns (but not if you are a merc). But if planet ownership affects tactical elements of the game, forge it, I'm out--or rather, still not in.

B5. Choice. I delve into this a lot more in the next section, but the whole aspect of choice that is repeatedly emphasized by PGI and the FP diehards has little appeal to me. In the abstract sense it does, but first we need A1, A2, and A3. If those reasons are never addressed, choice of faction, choice of unit, choice of planet, choice of enemies or allies will not draw me in. It's a red herring until fundamental gameplay becomes interesting.

C) These changes, in addition to (A), might get me invested in FP:

Spoiler

C1. More varied tactical gameplay. Maps with multiple attack corridors--or better yet no corridors. Maps twice or ten times the size of Polar Highlands where we need to prioritize targets to attack or defend within a match, and commit to them. Anything that doesn't involve grinding brawls in bottlenecks.

C2. Clearer campaign purposes and an overarching narrative. There is a strong desire for an Eve Online sort of player-run economy and political map, but I don't think that is possible in MWO for two major reasons: Lack of overall population; and lack of developmental resources. Likely due to time/resource constraints, PGI just can't cut it. I'd rather see a more limited but purposeful campaign. I might not get to choose, but there is a clear goal to the fight. Operation Bulldog and Serpent. The FedCom Civil War. And yes, Operation Revival. Give us a 3-month season with two clear goals (one for each side) beyond trading planets. During these campaign seasons, allies and enemies are assigned by PGI (or whoever designs and runs the campaigns), restricting choice but funneling gameplay into defined goals and matches.

C3. Better faction-based communication and recruiting tools. This is probably DOA due to how long it took to implement VOIP and basic chat (as I understand it), but we need faction lobbies within game. Even if it's just text chat and redirection to the TS hub. Use the faction to act as a giant surrogate unit for PUGs like me. People who want to play in units will play in units. People who don't just won't. But if you create a giant forum where we can consistently meet and play with other PUGs of our faction, we might be more inclined to build esprit d'corps and maybe even join units. And give units better recruiting tools in-game. It's just too much effort to try to find a unit via forums in my experience.

C4. I'd also like to see a restriction of choice. Force us into a random faction or the smallest population faction the first time we click on FP. New players know next to nothing about the factions, and since there is no in-game lore or tactical reason to choose one IS over another IS, it really doesn't matter. Place heavy emphasis on the loyalist factions and less emphasis on Mercs. Drawing emphasis away from Mercs with their tendency to switch loyalties will put emphasis on....loyalty, and the sense of in-game community that comes with it. To become a Merc you have to consciously break your initial Loyalist contract--the one you were forced into when you were "conscripted" or called to your liege's banner or smtg. Perhaps the Merc is where Units can still shine, but with well-established in-game loyalist communication tools I'd like to think the power of giant merc units would be significantly reduced.

TL;DR: The main thing that keeps people like me away is stale gameplay. Stale gameplay leads to low populations, making it harder to find matches and therefore harder to earn the experience necessary to really master the nuances of Invasion.

Proposals that focus on anything beyond the fundamental game play (e.g., choice of allies, personal or planetary rewards, game economy, attack lanes) are red herrings as far as I am concerned. I'd rather see less player choice if it means that there is more of a narrative purpose to the game, and the varied types of goals and actual gameplay that might accompany such narrative purpose.

^Since posting this, I played a significant deal during the FP event, mostly due to low wait times allowing me to "get into it" as I refer to in A2. I've warmed to the mode a little bit, but except for a few additional post-event forays, I've stayed away, mostly due to A1 (stale game play).

So though I can attest to somewhat enjoying the Assault game mode, I still think the best way to address the low population is to add more variety, either via more game modes, or by new maps that aren't the same basic blue print copy/pasted onto different tilesets.

I'll also add that B2 continued to be a problem--that is, the ceasefires repeatedly drove me back into the QP queue, and I would just spend the rest of my MWO evening on Canyon or HPG.

Edited by Jables McBarty, 25 July 2016 - 12:52 PM.

[Mystere]

Bombadil, on 22 July 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

I'll be monitoring, taking notes, and participating in this thread as much as possible throughout the weekend.

In that case, take a look here then.

[StarSauron]

can we have fair fun battles ?

1- Its always attacker good organised skilled team with paid mechs
vs a defender team of random guys.


2- It take so many time to get enough attackers by your faction and its divided here by 10 factions and much more mercenaries. It takes too much waiting time.

That's the main reason why most people don't like it,
make it fair and dont let people wair for long.

Let several factions attack together same planet,
so you have both "equal teams" and "dont "wait"



3- Why must it be this boring protect generators cannon thing ?
I mean you wait 5 min, than comes the enemy, fight for 5 min and must wait again 5 min. So 15 minutes are all the time just waiting till the enemy comes there. Its just boring.

Can't we have there well more diversity ?
Like that mode where all people fight over control of the circle in middle of the map.

[1453 R]

So there's no way I can make time to participate/listen in on the Round Table discussion, and I'm pretty sure any questions/concerns I put forward, from the perspective of a strictly regular/Quick Play player who sees no reason to ever participate in Faction Play, would be discarded in short order as the key issues this time don't seem to be of the "how do we make this boondoggle of a game mode appeal to a broader player base?" sort.

That's all right, though. I'm not posting to gripe, I'm posting to offer my thanks to Russ, Piranha, and NGNG for trying this format, and to express my hope that it works as well as it possibly can and we can continue to have such discussions regularly moving forward. I will be keeping tabs on what gets discussed/be watching the YouTube log whenever it comes out and encourage the players selected for the Round Table panel to be reasonable and respectful. If this works, we can someday move on to "how do we make this boondoggle of a game mode appeal to a broader player base?", and perhaps it can stop being such a counterproductive part of Piranha's development load.

[Semper Fi]

There is a positive in the voices being heard Bobmadil.
You have a big job to hear all these voices, good luck.

There are some great ideas in here, some just being squeaky though.

With that said I will add suggestions.
1. Make drop deck UI better. (which I think they are working on)
2. Repair and Rearm, introduce back in with changes but add to Faction Play. Use Quick Play to grind money for FP repair. (You lose a mech in FP, you either pay for it to get repaired or you cannot drop with it again until its repaired. Or QP)
3. If a faction only has their home/capital world left, make an event around that. After the event if they have lost that world, then that faction is no more, all go to independent, and then choose again for a new faction till reset of map. (if this is the case you need to add more planets or remove planets from various factions)
4. With fixes to drop deck, tonnage limits change per map. (includes scouting)
5. Use tonnage of opposing teams as your money for salvage. If you are in the top 5 you get more money than the bottom 7. (I don't know the math you use, maybe you do this).
6. Long Tom Should stay, but something like every 5 min or something. It should be a great reward for scouting, just be more tactical if you are on the receiving team. (Or put it to drop on drop zone of defenders with immunity. lol)
7. Scouting should count towards ownership of Planet. I don't know if this happens but should.(also better info on how the battle for the planet is going for all people.)
8. Scouting should be scouting. (Use the same maps as FP, and vice versa. Bigger though) With the appropriate scouting done, you get advantages in the FP. Also with FP the scouting gets harder if you don't own the planet. (Defender has 80% of the planet, turrets or something gets added to scouting missions for the defenders. Satellite, or something)
9. Mixed Mechs would be bad in my opinion for IS or Clan, however there should be a way to salvage mechs and weapons so you don't have to purchase them every time. (Maybe that is why you are doing supply caches. Anyway you get ersmall laser, so you don't have to buy one later grab bag every game based on mechs you played against and killed)
10. Faction quirks. (liao has quicker mechs, Steiner has more armor, Mercs get no extra speed or armor except weapon quirks or some such thing)
11. Clans against IS, and that is all the lanes. Drive option for attack lanes into Marik, Liao, Davion. (Hyper speed or something)
12. Planets do mean something, cheaper Mechs, or some such, maybe an Intel aspect. Their descriptions should match overall maps. (Someone said this I read, but if it is 30C, then all maps are 30C, or less gravity or more gravity. Bullets fly further, less further w/e)
13. Differentiate pilot skills. FP skills or QP skills, but make it where you have basic skills (current) and advanced skills. I would like my ability to get 2% more accuracy on my missiles or something.
14. I think good progress in trying to regulate the size of teams, but its just C-bills.
15. I like the ideas of several that Mercs should have a hiring hall, and based on amount of planets/money/ or whatever, there is limited space in said factions. Reset happens every week or something, all have to bid again, or whatever to get back into the faction,. After as an example say 5 times with one faction consecutively, you either become loyalist or you are forced out of the faction. (maybe just a reduction in pay)
16. All mercs get paid based on participation. Contracts evolve or devolve. Did you do scouting, FP, gain a planet, then you get paid X, oh you didn't you get paid Y.

These are some suggestions, its like most on here, just less drama I hope.

Semper Fi

[Falconer Cyrus]

400+ messages... Holy Pope... PGI will spend 2 years just trying to understand all that written here %-)))

[MovinTarget]

JaxRiot, on 25 July 2016 - 10:48 AM, said:

That Faction Hopping freedom creates a population Teeter Totter effect. It greatly hurts population
stability.

I won't deny this, but consider this; balance has to be achieved in a way where the minimal number people are driven away which is why I'm trying brainstorm ways that lore-ists get some lore, loyalists get better perks, and I can get to use all my mechs if I want to.

No it won't be perfect, no not everybody will be happy with all of it, but maybe we can all get something we want and keep playing.

How about merc contracts are longer and then once they are up you can only pick a new faction that is below 10%. Not at 10%, *BELOW*. All you have to do is come up with a way to ensure that if we go to a low pop faction we can still get action. Because nobody puts Baby in a corner.

How does that sound?

[Jables McBarty]

Bombadil, on 22 July 2016 - 07:01 PM, said:

This meeting will be focusing on further-reaching issues, such as player buckets and queue times. If successful, future meetings may focus on other topics, which may or may not include sale requests.

I put up my initial post in haste, but after reading several pages of responses, I want to reiterate my core argument, that spending time on anything besides increasing the diversity of core FP gameplay, whether that is module sales, systems of alliances, or how units are allowed to swap Cbills/MC, is a waste of development and project management resources.
Such changes might get the FP community from 4% of the playerbase to 5% or even 6%, but if you want to get to numbers like 20% regular participation, we need fundamentally more diversity in the gameplay.

A lot of these more detail-oriented posts appear to me (I may be wrong) to come from people who already play FP regularly and enjoy it for what it is worth.

---

Also kudos to you Bombadil for following this forum topic, and to PGI for hosting this roundtable--though I sincerely hope that the average MWO player (not just the average FP player) is represented at the table. Which is to say, asking the heads of the 5 most successful FP units to "fix" FP sounds to me like calling a council of Virginia cotton barons to solve the problem of chattel slavery.

[T I N M A N]

Jables McBarty, on 25 July 2016 - 02:22 PM, said:

but if you want to get to numbers like 20% regular participation, we need fundamentally more diversity in the gameplay.

...

A lot of these more detail-oriented posts appear to me (I may be wrong) to come from people who already play FP regularly and enjoy it for what it is worth.

At least in my case, i would say you are wrong. I don't like FP as is, but I feel it can be so much better. I like it more than QP (when I get matches) but it needs so much more to be good.

And I agree that we need better gameplay, but I disagree that it has to be step one. It cannot.

If you condense the queues first and then implement the better game play, you can ensure that people can actually play the game if they come back. There will be no mass return of players to the game where the queues will be full again after one game play patch. People will, but it will be a trickle before it becomes a flood. If you condense the queues you can ensure that people actually get to play your new patch instead of them waiting 30 mins to get a real match and get bored and quit again.

I totally agree that a queue condensing isn't what will get this game back on track, but it is the best first step before implementing the game play features we all want.

Edited by NightStalker97, 25 July 2016 - 02:53 PM.

[Jables McBarty]

NightStalker97, on 25 July 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

At least in my case, i would say you are wrong. I don't like FP as is, but I feel it can be so much better. I like it more than QP (when I get matches) but it needs so much more to be good.

And I agree that we need better gameplay, but I disagree that it has to be step one. It cannot.

If you condense the queues first and then implement the better game play, you can ensure that people can actually play the game if they come back. There will be no mass return of player to the game where the queues will be full again after one game play patch. People will, but it will be a trickle before it becomes a flood. If you condense the queues then you can ensure that the trickle has the ability to become a flood much sooner. You can ensure that people actually get to play your new patch instead of them waiting 30 mins to get a real match and get bored and quit again.

I totally agree that a queue condensing isn't what will get this game back on track, but it is the best first step before implementing the game play features we all want.

My second post was a bit more narrow-minded than my first (give it a read if you haven't--it's also linked in my sig), in which I posit Root Problem #A1 as stale gameplay, leading to Problem #A2 low population and resultant Problem #A3 steep learning curve.

So I'm inclined to agree, but as you say, only if merging the queues to reduce wait times is seen as a stepping stone, not as the solution.

Because I do think the ultimate problem for the vast number of non-FPers is the gameplay itself. If the game mode was more fun than QP, lack of queues or lore and a clunky interface wouldn't be (as much of) a problem.

[Stormbringer13]

tee5, on 25 July 2016 - 12:26 PM, said:

sorry Kondo I have to interrupt and I think I have a better System. I didn't read the 18 pages, could be it was mentioned allready.


A Unit can have 4000 Players, but what if only 100 of them are playing CW/FP? So Unit Size not equals FP/CW Player Size.

Unit A has 200 Players and Unit B has 200 Players as well. BUT Unit A has very skilled Players. And they have a lot of time and play very frequently CW/FP. Unit B has very low skilled Players, and they don't have much time to play FP/CW. So Unit Size equals not Unit Size.


What you have to do, is a lot of math: You have to compress the math in a quotient or ratio.

Factors are: 1. How often does a player, play CW/FP. Look into his CW/FP gamestats, of the past 4 weeks, crunch that up into a quotient.

2. How good is he playing CW/FP. Look into his CW/FP gamestats, of the past 4 weeks, look at his Kill most damage dealts, his kill/death ratio, his win/lose ratio etc. crunch that up into a quotient.
(EDIT: But what if a good player makes a pause of 4 weeks, to cheat and get a low quotient. Hell, then shall it be all the games he ever played in CW/FP).

What this means is. A very good Player, who spends a lot of time in CW/FP has a quotient of 10(for example).
A very good Player, who seldom plays CW/FP has a quotient of 3 (for example).
A bad Player, who spends a lot of time in CW/FP has a quotient of 1 (for example).
A bad Player, who almost never plays CW/FP has a quotient of 0,25 (for example).


Every Faction is allowed to have so many players till their maximum number of quotient is reached. Let's say every Faction is allowed 2000 quotient.


That means: One factions can have the best players of the world, who spend hundreds of hours each week in CW/FP. But because they are so good they will soon get to the maximum of 2000 quotient. So they will have 200 Players(each player with a quotient of 10). And they are not allowed to have more because Maximum of 2000 qotient is reached. A Maximum reached Quotient means a total Stop nobody new is allowed for this faction, new players must go to a other faction which is not full.

The other faction has not so good players, or the good players don't want to go to this faction. So they will get mediocre players, who play maybe 5 hours a week CW/FP. But they can take more of this mediocre players. So they will have 2500 players. (each player with a average quotient of 0,8).

So 200 players have to play against 2500 players. And this is fair! Because on the one side are all the Pros who play a lot. And on the other side are only the mediocre/bad players who don't play so regular.

When all Factions have reached their Maximum of 2000 Quotient. PGI can increase the number for all factions.

I'll put my money on the group with 200 players. having 2500 mediocre players doesn't equal the 200 skilled players because it's not 2500 vs 200 on the battlefield, it's 12 vs 12. Skill wins every time.

But thanks for the idea.

[T I N M A N]

Jables McBarty, on 25 July 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

So I'm inclined to agree, but as you say, only if merging the queues to reduce wait times is seen as a stepping stone, not as the solution.

Read my 3 main posts on

Page 1: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5306783

Page 8: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5307760

and Page 17: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__5309423

(I'm not good with linking stuff)
(and I have read your posts and every one on here )

I care just as much as anyone about the success of this game and I want most of the things that you want too and more. I understand we need better game play. In fact I hope that after sometime we can reopen all of the queues again.

It's just, I see no point to trying to make the game better until people can actually play it.
And right now, it's meant for a player group that is much Much larger.

Once people can play it, then we can make it incredible.

Edited by NightStalker97, 25 July 2016 - 03:05 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Jables McBarty, on 25 July 2016 - 02:22 PM, said:

I put up my initial post in haste, but after reading several pages of responses, I want to reiterate my core argument, that spending time on anything besides increasing the diversity of core FP gameplay, whether that is module sales, systems of alliances, or how units are allowed to swap Cbills/MC, is a waste of development and project management resources.
Such changes might get the FP community from 4% of the playerbase to 5% or even 6%, but if you want to get to numbers like 20% regular participation, we need fundamentally more diversity in the gameplay.

A lot of these more detail-oriented posts appear to me (I may be wrong) to come from people who already play FP regularly and enjoy it for what it is worth.

---

Also kudos to you Bombadil for following this forum topic, and to PGI for hosting this roundtable--though I sincerely hope that the average MWO player (not just the average FP player) is represented at the table. Which is to say, asking the heads of the 5 most successful FP units to "fix" FP sounds to me like calling a council of Virginia cotton barons to solve the problem of chattel slavery.

Some good points here. I agree fp needs a lot of supporting additions to make it work.

If who ever is at this podcast is legit and trying, I don't care who it is. Guilds or what ever.

I think solo and none solo is the least of worries. I said that trolling in faction play would be its biggest single hurdle from day 1 though, seriously before phase 1 ever came out. I still think it should be mostly ignored until the mode actually works though.

Supporting additions? I already mentioned some earlier in this topic, but until this is a full featured game fp wont really be at full potential. On the bright side its really looking good so far, really slowly.

Maybe not the most important but my favourite addition would be things like faction leader NPC's giving missions and rank rewards and that entire direction.

About units. Its simple have each faction give rewards to the top unit only type of thing. That way they will conspire to fix matches less. How the problem of them dropping disconnected mechs or what amounted to disco's, into the pug teams is another thing entirely. Maybe 10% of matches against 12 mans was 12 v 12 at the most.

To be clear 90% of matches against 12 mans had between 1 and 4 mechs doing a total of 0 to 150 damage for the entire match. Something close to those numbers.

Edited by Johnny Z, 25 July 2016 - 03:33 PM.

[TWIAFU]

MovinTarget, on 25 July 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

Here is the basic idea: Loyalist level 9 - unlock a mix-tech drop deck bay - Light mech Loyalist level 13 - that mix-tech bay can now be light or medium level 16 - that one bay can be light, medium, or heavy level 19 - that one bay can be any mech you own, not just your factions, tech So you can only ever bring one mech of opposing tech, but dangit it would be further incentive to level up and would add just a tad of flavor to drop decks.

Been reading a lot of good idea Target, keep them flowing...

Don't want to see a mix of Clan/IS drop decks for IS, not ever. You have a real good idea with it but I think a better route to accomplish that and yet stay true to lore as much as possible.

Advance the timeline. This allows for more mechs to be introduced and PGI to sell them (don't stop reading!) and more importantly the advances in IS technology.

[MovinTarget]

What if we basically rework the unit structure as a whole (if someone else suggested this, I missed it). Can we have what is considered a unit now be more like an umbrella, with the ability to identify the players that do FP as a subgroup.

This could be explicit ("TWIAFU, I CHOOSE YOU!") or implicit (based on you doing more than X CW matches in Y timeframe).

This does not perhaps fix anything directly, but allows a unit and/or PGI to track/show just how many people in a unit are impacting FP which may be a better indicator that simply going off of unit size.